4种抛光套装对cercon氧化锆抛光后表面粗糙度的对比研究

doi:10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2024.10.007

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的评价4种不同抛光套装的抛光效果。方法选择合适的氧化锆试件50个,表面使用蓝色金刚砂车针处理至无瑕疵,随机分成5组,每组10个试件。A组为阴性对照组,B组为EVE组,C组为SHOFU组,D组为道邦组,E组为NAIS组,进行逐级抛光。所有试件每级进行一次处理后,均测量试件表面粗糙度Ra值。每组每一级处理后随机选取一个试件放入真空镀膜仪进行表面喷金,在扫描电镜中抽真空后进行表面形貌观测。结果最终Ra值:阴性对照组((1.677±0.066)μm)>SHOFU组((0.357±0.037)μm)>EVE组((0.248±0.051)μm)>道邦组((0.115±0.039)μm)、NAIS组((0.123±0.029)μm)。扫描电镜观察:使用金刚砂车针在试件表面留下的划痕最深且长,使用抛光套装依次处理试件表面可使试件表面逐渐光滑。经过NAIS组及道邦组抛光后的试件表面在镜下划痕最少且较浅。结论道邦及NAIS氧化锆抛光套装的抛光效果最好。

关键词: cercon氧化锆, 抛光, Ra值, 扫描电镜

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the polishing finish of four different polishing tools. Methods Fifty specimens were selected from suitable zirconia and randomly divided into 5 groups with 10 specimens in each group. Group A was the negative control group; Group B was the EVE group; Group C was the SHOFU group; Group D was the Toboom group, and Group E was the NAIS group. All specimens were subjected to surface roughness measurements after each level of treatment. One specimen in each group was randomly selected after each level of treatment and put into the vacuum coater for surface gold spraying, and then put into the scanning electron microscope for surface morphology observation after vacuuming. Results Final Ra value: The negative group ((1.677±0.066)μm)>SHOFU group ((0.357±0.037)μm)>EVE group ((0.248±0.051)μm)>Toboom group ((0.115±0.039)μm) and NAIS group ((0.123±0.029)μm). Scanning electron microscope observation showed that the deepest and longest scratches were left on the surface of the specimen with the diamond needle, and the surface of the specimen was gradually smoothed by using the polishing kit to treat the surfacein turn. The surface of the specimens polished by NAIS group and Toboom group had the least and shallow scratches under the mirror. Conclusion Toboom and NAIS zirconia polishing tools provide the best polishing results.

Key words: cercon zirconia, polished, Ra value, scanning electron microscope

中图分类号:

R783.2

韩雨希, 张伟峻, 徐晶, 姚梦婷, 曲哲, 张翔. 4种抛光套装对cercon氧化锆抛光后表面粗糙度的对比研究[J]. 口腔医学, 2024, 44(10): 759-764.

HAN Yuxi, ZHANG Weijun, XU Jing, YAO Mengting, QU Zhe, ZHANG Xiang. Comparative study on surface roughness of polishing cercon zirconia with four polishing tools[J]. Stomatology, 2024, 44(10): 759-764.

图/表 7

表1

图1

表2

图2

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 21

[1]	郭亚林, 魏煦, 景建龙. 三种扫描流程制作氧化锆修复体的临床效果比较研究[J]. 口腔医学, 2022, 42(11): 1006-1010.
[2]	Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Eichberger M, et al. Three generations of zirconia: From veneered to monolithic. Part Ⅱ[J]. Quintessence Int, 2017, 48(6): 441-450. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a38157 pmid: 28497132
[3]	Nassary Zadeh P, Lümkemann N, Sener B, et al. Flexural strength, fracture toughness, and translucency of cubic/tetragonal zirconia materials[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018, 120(6): 948-954. doi: S0022-3913(18)30066-0 pmid: 29807742
[4]	Park C, Vang MS, Park SW, et al. Effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of zirconia and the durability of the polishing systems[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2017, 117(3): 430-437. doi: S0022-3913(16)30536-4 pmid: 28088308
[5]	Chavali R, Lin CP, Lawson NC. Evaluation of different polishing systems and speeds for dental zirconia[J]. J Prosthodont, 2017, 26(5): 410-418. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12396 pmid: 26618785
[6]	Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature[J]. Dent Mater, 1997, 13(4): 258-269. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3 pmid: 11696906
[7]	Kozmacs C, Hollmann B, Arnold WH, et al. Polishing of monolithic zirconia crowns-results of different dental practitioner groups[J]. Dent J, 2017, 5(4): 30.
[8]	刘晓强, 刘明月, 杨洋, 等. 氧化锆和玻璃陶瓷颜色及半透明度稳定性的体外研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(4): 335-338. doi: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2021.04.013
[9]	Flury S, Diebold E, Peutzfeldt A, et al. Effect of artificial toothbrushing and water storage on the surface roughness and micromechanical properties of tooth-colored CAD-CAM materials[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2017, 117(6): 767-774. doi: S0022-3913(16)30458-9 pmid: 27836147
[10]	Al-Haj Husain N, Camilleri J, Özcan M. Effect of polishing instruments and polishing regimens on surface topography and phase transformation of monolithic zirconia: An evaluation with XPS and XRD analysis[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2016, 64: 104-112. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.07.025 pmid: 27497266
[11]	赵鑫. 牙科陶瓷磨抛后表面性状的实验研究[D]. 西安: 第四军医大学, 2007.
[12]	Silva TM, Salvia ACRD, Carvalho RF, et al. Polishing for glass ceramics: Which protocol?[J]. J Prosthodont Res, 2014, 58(3): 160-170. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001 pmid: 24684959
[13]	徐少红. 高速磨削加工工艺及应用[J]. 电加工与模具, 2007(S1): 34-36,75.
[14]	韩雷. 陶瓷磨削表面加工损伤检测与实验研究[D]. 天津: 天津大学, 2007.
[15]	中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 产品几何技术规范(GPS)表面结构,轮廓法,表面粗糙度参数及其数值 GB/T1031—2009[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2009:2-5.
[16]	Kelly J, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: Historical evolution and current practice[J]. Aust Dent J, 2011, 56: 84-96.
[17]	孙硕, 梁锐英, 任婧, 等. 抛光和上釉对氧化锆修复体与牙釉质磨损性能的影响[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2016, 51(5): 300-304.
[18]	张凯, 吴凤鸣. 表面抛光和上釉对Y-TZP全瓷表面粗糙度及磨耗性能的影响[J]. 口腔医学, 2017, 37(10): 914-917.
[19]	川井善之. チタンの研磨術式の検討[J]. 鶴見歯学, 1997:23.
[20]	Flury S, Lussi A, Zimmerli B. Performance of different polishing techniques for direct CAD/CAM ceramic restorations[J]. Oper Dent, 2010, 35(4): 470-481. doi: 10.2341/09-373-L pmid: 20672733
[21]	Yin L, Nakanishi Y, Alao AR, et al. A review of engineered zirconia surfaces in biomedical applications[J]. Procedia CIRP, 2017, 65: 284-290.

分组	抛光工具	粗糙程度	货号	转速/(r/min)	是否喷水	抛光时长/min
A	-	-		-	-	-
B	EVE(德国)	粗	DYP13g	10 000	否	2
		中粗	H8DCmf	10 000	否	2
		细	H8DC	10 000	否	2
C	SHOFU(日本)	粗	DHP70	15 000	否	2
		中	PA~0564	10 000	否	2
		细	SF~0121	10 000	否	2
D	道邦(中国)	中粗	RD2023	20 000	否	2
		粗	RD2024	20 000	否	2
		极细	RD2025	15 000	否	2
		超细	RD2026	15 000	否	2
E	NAIS(保加利亚)	粗	ZD112Cd	8 000	否	2
		中粗	L17M	10 000	否	2
		细	L17F	10 000	否	2

分组	未处理	绿砂石	第一级	第二级	第三级
A	1.677±0.066^a	—	—	—	—
B	—	0.981±0.063	0.408±0.061	0.248±0.051^b	—
C	—	0.489±0.039	0.394±0.044	0.357±0.037^c	—
D	—	0.379±0.062	0.204±0.049	0.147±0.022	0.115±0.039^d
E	—	0.616±0.055	0.189±0.022	0.123±0.029^d	—