Objective: This study aimed to compare the polishing performance of five different glass-ceramic polishing tools on CEREC Blocs ceramic and provide evidence for clinical polishing tool selection.
Methods: Sixty ceramic specimens were prepared and divided into six groups (n=10). These specimens received different surface treatments, including glazing (group G), polishing with Shofu polishing set, that is, Porcelain Adjustment Kit+CeraMaster (group SF), 3M Sof-LexTM Discs (group 3M), TobooM polishing set (group Tob), EVE DIAPRO system (group EVE), and Ivoclar Vivadent OptraFine® system (group Ivo). Polishing quality was measured with a profilometer, and we selected Ra and Rz values for statistical analysis. Qualitative surface evaluation was performed by a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Results: The mean Ra values of each group were as follows: G (0.069 µm±0.008 µm)<3M (0.073 µm±0.009 µm)<SF (0.223 µm±0.025 µm)<Ivo (0.229 µm±0.022 µm)<EVE (0.491 µm±0.093 µm)<Tob (0.763 µm±0.067 µm). No significant difference was observed between G and 3M groups (P>0.05), and SF and Ivo groups (P>0.05), but the remaining treatment groups were significantly different from each other (P<0.05). Statistical results of Rz values were the same as the Ra values, and visual analysis of the images obtained from SEM was consistent with the statistical results.
Conclusions: The polishing performance of different polishing tools for CEREC Blocs ceramic was different. Sof-LexTM Discs achieved the most remarkable performance, which was comparable to that of glazing. .
目的 比较临床常用的几种玻璃陶瓷抛光工具对CEREC Blocs陶瓷的抛光效果，为临床抛光工具的选择提供依据。方法 制作60个陶瓷试件，随机分为6组（n=10），进行不同的表面处理。G组：釉膏上釉；SF组：使用松风Porcelain Adjustment Kit+CeraMaster 组合抛光；3M组：使用3M Sof-LexTM Discs套装抛光；Tob组：使用道邦玻璃陶瓷套装抛光；EVE组：使用EVE DIAPRO套装抛光；Ivo组：使用义获嘉伟瓦登特OptraFine®套装抛光。测量各组试件表面粗糙度值Ra、Rz并作统计分析，通过扫描电子显微镜（SEM）观测试件并对其表面形态作定性分析。结果 G、3M、SF、Ivo、EVE、Tob组的抛光后Ra值分别为（0.069±0.008）、（0.073±0.009）、（0.223±0.025）、（0.229±0.022）、（0.491±0.093）、（0.763±0.067）µm，经统计学分析，Ra值从小到大依次为G和3M组<SF和Ivo组<EVE组<Tob组，其中G组与3M组、SF组与Ivo组的差异无统计学意义（P>0.05），其余各组间差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。Rz值统计结果与Ra值一致。SEM观察结果与粗糙度值的统计结果一致。结论 不同抛光工具对CEREC Blocs陶瓷的抛光效果不同，本实验条件下，Sof-LexTM Discs套装抛光表面最光滑，效果近似釉膏上釉。.
Keywords: CEREC Blocs ceramic; glazing; polishing; surface roughness.