III. PREVENT FROM CARIES SYMPOSIUM; 13-14 NOVEMBER 2020; ONLINE; INTERNATIONAL, 13 - 14 Kasım 2020, ss.35, (Özet Bildiri)
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of two different polishing systems on the surface roughness of CAD/CAM ceramic materials.
Materials and Methods: In this study, three different types of chairside CAD/CAM materials (n=10) were
used:1-Nano Hybrid Composite (HC) (Grandio, VOCO), 2-Lithium disilicate glass ceramic (LD) (IPS Emax
CAD, Ivoclar), 3-Feldspar‐silicate glass ceramic (FC) (Cerec blocks, Sirona). The surfaces were ground and
polished with 600 and 1000 grid silicon carbide papers before application of the ceramic polishing systems. The
specimens were polished with two different polishing systems:1-Diamond particle polishing (DPP): Diacera
[EVE, Ernst Vetter, Germany]; 2-Silicon carbide particle polishing (SCP): Ceramiste [Shofu, Japan] according to manufacturer’s instructions. The surface roughness of the specimens were measured at 3 points of the
top surfaces by a contact profilometer and the arithmetic mean of the each sample was calculated (Ra, µm). The
Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test normality of the data. Two-way analysis of variance(ANOVA) was
used to compare surface roughness (p=0.05).
Results: Statistically significant difference was found among three CAD/CAM materials (LD>FC>HC) for
both polishing systems(p<0.05). No significant differences were found(p>0.05) between two polishing systems in HC and FC groups. In LD groups, DPP showed higher surface roughness compared to SCP (p<0.05).
Conclusion: While Hybrid Composite showed the lowest roughness, Lithium disilicate glass ceramic blocks
showed the highest values. In Lithium disilicate glass ceramic blocks, silicon carbide particle polishing system
may result lower surface roughness compared to diamond particle polishing system.