Statement of problem: During the insertion appointment, the practitioner is often faced with the need to adjust ceramic surfaces to fit a restoration to the adjacent or opposing dentition and soft tissues.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the ceramic surface smoothness achieved with various commercially available ceramic polishing kits on different commonly used ceramic systems. The reliability of the cost of a polishing kit as an indicator of improved surface smoothness was assessed.
Material and methods: A total of 350 ceramic surfaces representing 5 commonly available ceramic systems (IPS Empress Esthetic, IPS e.max Press, Cergo Kiss, Vita PM 9, Imagine PressX) were treated with 5 types of ceramic polishing systems (Cerapreshine, 94006C, Ceramiste, Optrafine, Zenostar) by following the manufacturers' guidelines. The surface roughness was measured with a profilometer (Taylor Hobson; Precision Taylor Hobson Ltd). The effects of ceramic systems and polishing kits of interest on surface roughness were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA, paired t test, and Bonferroni corrected significance level.
Results: The ceramic systems and polishing kits statistically affected surface roughness (P<.001).The polishing kit Zenostar on IPS e.max Press created the smoothest ceramic surface. No correlation could be established between the high cost of the polishing kit and low surface roughness. None of the commonly used ceramic polishing kits could create a surface smoother than that of glazed ceramic (P<.001).
Conclusions: The inclusion of a diamond polishing paste step is recommended to improve surface smoothness (P<.001). The cost of ceramic polishing kits is not recommended as a reliable indicator of better performance of ceramic polishing kits (P>.30).
Copyright © 2015 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.