[Downloaded free from http://www.urjd.org on Monday, May 04, 2015, IP: 189.217.20.

242]

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Effects of Porcelain Finishing and Polishing Systems on the

Surface Roughness of Feldspathic Porcelain: An In Vitro Study
Manoj Shetty, Raghavendra Jaiman, Prasad D Krishna
Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Attavar Balakrishna Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University,
Mangalore, Karnataka, India

ABSTRACT
Introduction: This in vitro study deals with the efficiency of surface polishing systems after the glaze layer of
the ceramic has been altered using a medium grit diamond to simulate the chairside adjustment of a restoration.
Materials and Methods: Forty porcelain discs measuring 10 mm 3 mm with a metal substructure of 10 mm 1 mm
were used. Ceramco 3(ultra-low fusing feldspathic porcelain) porcelain system was used to fabricate the discs on the
metal substructure. A medium grit diamond was used to simulate the chairside adjustment procedures. Ten samples
were glazed (control group) and 30 samples were finished and polished using three finishing and polishing agents.
(experimental group; Shofu Ceramaster, Kohinoor diamond polishing paste and Sof-Lex discs).These 40 samples and
the initial roughened samples were subjected to a profilometer evaluation to obtain results in Ra (Average roughness
in m) and Rz (Mean maximum peak -to-valley height in m). Results: One way ANOVA revealed a statistical significant
difference amongst Ra values of the group. Amongst the finished and polished group of samples, the samples polished
with Shofu Ceramaster diamond-impregnated silicon showed the highest efficiency among the three finishing and
polishing systems followed by samples polished with Kohinoor L highly filled diamond polishing paste and the least
efficient polishing system was the samples polished using Sof-Lex discs. The Rz (Mean peak-to-valley height) values
showed the same results as the Ra values. Conclusion: The study concluded that among the three finishing and
polishing systems tested, Shofu Ceramaster diamond impregnated silicon rubbers are the most efficient with significant
differences in surface roughness compared to roughened samples
KEY WORDS: Feldspathic porcelain, profilometry, surface roughness

INTRODUCTION
Dental ceramic has been used in dentistry for
over150years.[1] Currently, dental ceramic is used
extensively as a restorative material in a variety of dental
restorations, including allceramic restorations, metal
ceramic crowns, fixed partial dentures, and even in
complete dentures in some cases because of its aesthetic
properties, durability, and biocompatibility.[2]
It is a common clinical practice to adjust the glazed surface
of ceramic restorations before insertion by grinding.[3]
Surface modifications are essential for correcting occlusal
interferences and inadequate contours, finishing the
margins of ceramic restorations, and improving the
Access this article online
Quick Response Code

Website:
www.urjd.org
DOI:
10.4103/2249-9725.140676

158

esthetic appearance and surface smoothness of ceramic

restorations.[4]
A rough surface may abrade the opposing tooth or
restorative materials. Abrasiveness is more correlated with
ceramic roughness[5] than with hardness.[6] Several studies
have shown that finished ceramic can produce equal or
less enamel wear than glazed ceramic.[7,8] The roughness
of intraoral hard surfaces has a major impact on the initial
adhesion and retention of oral microorganisms.
The current study deals with the efficiency of surface
polishing systems after the glaze layer of the ceramic has
been altered using a medium grit diamond to simulate the
chairside adjustment of a restoration. It is aimed to analyze
the relative efficiency of each of the four polishing systems
by comparing them with roughened samples, keeping glazed
samples as control.
Address for Correspondence:

Dr.Manoj Shetty,
Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge,
A. BShetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences,
Nitte University, Deralakatte,
Mangalore, Karnataka575018, India.
Email:drmanojshetty@gmail.com

Universal Research Journal of Dentistry September-December 2014 Vol 4 Issue 3

[Downloaded free from http://www.urjd.org on Monday, May 04, 2015, IP: 189.217.20.242]
Shetty, etal.: Effects of porcelain finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The porcelain discs consisted of metal substructures
prepared by casting metal discs of 101mm size
using Fornax casting machine by Bego. Girobond
CBS, a carbonfree NiCrMobonding alloy, was used
for casting the metal substructure for the required
40 discs.[Figures1 and 2] The porcelain was then layered
on all 40 metal substructures using Ceramco3(ultralow
fusing feldspathic porcelain) porcelain system. The buildup
was done using purely enamel crystals as the occlusal
adjustment requires reduction of enamel layer of the
prosthesis. The final porcelain discs along with the metal
substructure measured 103mm. All 40 discs were glazed
with overglaze followed by which a medium grit diamond
rotary instrument was used on all discs to emulate the
chairside occlusal adjustment of prosthesis[Figure3]. Out
of the 40 roughened porcelain discs, 10 discs were glazed
with overglaze and the remaining 30 discs were finished
and polished using 3 finishing and polishing systems and
1 system for a group of 10 discs.
The agents used for polishing the three groups of samples
were Group1: Shofu Ceramaster: Diamondimpregnated
silicone polishers[Figure4], Group2: Reinfert
Kohinoor: Highly filled diamond particle polishing
paste[Figure5], Group3: SofLex finishing and polishing
system[Figure6].
Finally, all samples were tested for their surface roughness
using Surtronic 3+surface roughness analyzer by Taylor
Hobson Ltd.(distance travelled by the stylus 2.5mm) for
parameters Ra and Rz[Figures7 and 8]. Each sample
was analyzed three times. The values were digitally
displayed on the profilometer and then tabulated.

Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed by a oneway
ANOVA(SPSS version16.0) to compare the three
finished and polished group of samples(experimental

groups) and the glazed samples(control group)

with the roughened samples to find if there was any
statistical significance between the five groups. Also, a
posthoc analysis using Tukey HSD was performed to
compare each of the three finished and polished group of
samples with the roughened and glazed group of samples
and with every other group.

RESULTS
The mean and standard deviation was calculated and
tabulated for a oneway ANOVA test of the samples [Table1].
A oneway ANOVA revealed that a statistically significant
difference exists between the five groups. It compared the
five groups to reveal that the highest Ra and Rz values
were obviously seen for the roughened samples with
a mean Ra of 5.23 m and mean Rz of 26.31 m. Among
the three finished and polished groups of samples, the
most efficient finishing and polishing system was Shofu
Ceramaster (Grp 1). Grp 1 samples had a mean Ra of 3.89
m and mean Rz of 18.57 m. Second most efficient
was Kohinoor L highly filled diamond polishing paste
(Grp 2). Grp 2 had a mean Ra of 4.66 m and mean Rz of
24.08 m. The least efficient amongst the three groups was
the SofLex finishing and polishing system (Grp 3). Grp 3
had a mean Ra of 4.83 m and mean Rz of 24.64 m.
Finally, the glazed group, which was the control group,
revealed a mean Ra of 1.06 m and a mean Rz of 3.43 m.
The posthoc analysis Tukey HSD was done to compare
Ra (average roughness) values of the roughened
group of samples and the three polished groups of
samples(experimental groups) and glazed group of
samples(control group)[Table2].
It was found that the Ra values of Grp 1samples
(mean Ra 3.89 m) and those of the roughened samples
(mean Ra 5.23 m) showed a statistically significant

Table1: Oneway ANOVA test(Grp 1-Shofu, Grp 2-Kohinoor and Grp 3-Soflex)
Descriptive
Ra(in microns)
Roughened samples
Grp 1
Grp 2
Grp 3
Glazed samples
Total
Rz(in microns)
Roughened samples
Grp 1
Grp 2
Grp 3
Glazed samples
Total

Mean

Std. Deviation

Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

30
30
30
30
30
150

5.232667
3.897333
4.659333
4.828667
1.061333
3.935867

1.197083
0.806332
1.209588
1.500609
0.480458
1.855226

165.879

68.715

<0.001

30
30
30
30
30
150

26.31667
18.57667
24.08333
25.64333
3.436667
19.61133

5.906576
2.972133
5.915502
7.625623
1.395185
10.01562

332.491

65.05

<0.001

ANOVA = Analysis of variance, Grp = Group

Universal Research Journal of Dentistry September-December 2014 Vol 4 Issue 3

159

[Downloaded free from http://www.urjd.org on Monday, May 04, 2015, IP: 189.217.20.242]
Shetty, etal.: Effects of porcelain finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness

difference(P<0.05) whereas the Ra values of Grp

2samples(mean Ra 4.65 m) and the Grp 3samples
(mean Ra 4.82 m) did not show a statistically significant
difference(P>0.05) when compared to the roughened
samples(mean Ra 5.23 m).

Furthermore, the Ra values of glazed samples

(Control group) (mean Ra 1.06 m) were compared
to the Ra values of all three polished groups of samples
(experimental group)(mean Ra 3.89 m, 4.65 m, and
4.82 m) and it revealed a statistically significant difference
(P<0.05).

Figure 1: All samples (40 glazed samples)

Figure 2: Thickness of (a) Metal substructure; (b) Porcelain build-up

Figure 3: Glaze surface removal using medium-grit diamond

Figure 4:
polishers

Shofu

Ceramaster

Diamond-impregnated

silicone

Figure 5: Reinfert Kohinoor: Highly filled diamond particle polishing

paste
Figure 6: Sof-Lex finishing and polishing system

Figure 7: Surtronic 3+ surface roughness analyzer by Taylor

Hobson Ltd.
160

Figure 8: Measurement of surface roughness of a sample

Universal Research Journal of Dentistry September-December 2014 Vol 4 Issue 3

[Downloaded free from http://www.urjd.org on Monday, May 04, 2015, IP: 189.217.20.242]
Shetty, etal.: Effects of porcelain finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness

Table2: Posthoc analysis tukey HSD(Grp 1-Shofu, Grp 2-Kohinoor, and Grp 3-Soflex)
Tukey HSD
Dependent variable

(I) grp

(J) grp

Mean difference (I-J)

Std. error

P value

Ra
(in microns)

Roughened samples

Glazed samples

4.171333

0.283524

<0.001

Grp 1
Grp 2
Grp 3
Grp 1
Grp 2
Grp 3
Grp 2
Grp 3
Grp 3
Glazed samples

1.335333
0.573333
0.404
2.836
3.598
3.76733
0.762
0.93133
0.16933
22.88

0.283524
0.283524
0.283524
0.283524
0.283524
0.283524
0.283524
0.283524
0.283524
1.360446

<0.001
0.261
0.613
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.061
0.011
0.975
<0.001

Grp
Grp
Grp
Grp
Grp
Grp
Grp
Grp
Grp

7.74
2.233333
0.673333
15.14
20.6467
22.2067
5.50667
7.06667
1.56

1.360446
1.360446
1.360446
1.360446
1.360446
1.360446
1.360446
1.360446
1.360446

<0.001
0.473
0.988
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
0.781

Glazed samples
Grp 1
Rz
(in microns)

Grp 2
Roughened samples

Glazed samples
Grp 1
Grp 2

1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
3

HSD = Tukeys honestly significant differences, Grp = group

When Ra values of the various polished samples

were compared to each other, it was revealed that the
Ra values of Grp 2samples(mean Ra 4.65 m) did
not have a statistically significant difference to the
Ra values of Grp 1samples(mean Ra 3.89 m) and Grp
3samples(mean Ra 4.82 m). Whereas the Ra values of
the Grp 1samples(mean Ra 3.89 m) had a statistically
significant difference compared to the Ra values of the
Grp 3samples(mean Ra 4.82 m).
The Rz(mean peaktovalley height) values
showed the exact same correlation as the Ra values
except the Rz values of Grp 2samples(mean Ra 24.08
m) and Rz values of Grp 1samples(mean Ra 18.57 m),
which showed a statistically significant difference unlike
the Ra values.

DISCUSSION
With the increased use of ceramic materials in dentistry,
one must pay careful attention to the efficacy of different
polishing systems and techniques, the brittle nature of this
material and whether the intraoral polishing techniques
using rotary instruments, such as diamond burs and rubber
abrasives, can provide a clinically acceptable smoothness
due to the high hardness of ceramic materials. It is a
wellknown fact that post adjustment can be overcome
using overglaze or various finishing and polishing systems
available.
While some studies have verified that glazing resulted in
a smoother surface compared to polishing, other studies

have found comparable final surfaces for both finishing

methods.[911] There have also been studies that showed
polished ceramic surfaces to be smoother than glazed
surfaces.[12,13]
The current study compares the efficacy of three such
finishing and polishing agents in polishing samples
of feldspathic porcelain after the glaze layer had been
removed from them using a mediumgrit diamond keeping
the glazed samples as the control group. Amediumgrit
diamond was used so as to have a better idea about the
relative efficiency of each of the finishing and polishing
systems. This removal of the glazed layer simulated the
rough surface of porcelain following chairside adjustment
of a restoration.
Following the use of medium grit diamond to simulate
the chairside adjustment procedures, 10samples were
glazed(Control group) and 30samples were finished
and polished using three finishing and polishing
agents(experimental group; Shofu Ceramaster, Kohinoor
diamond polishing paste, and SofLex discs). All these
40samples and the initial roughened samples were subjected
to profilometer evaluation to obtain results in Ra(average
roughness in m) and Rz(mean maximum peaktovalley
height in m). The values from the profilometer evaluation
were subjected to statistical analysis. Aoneway ANOVA
revealed that a statistically significant difference between
the five groups. It compared the five groups to reveal that
the highest Ra and Rz values were obviously seen for the
roughened Samples with a mean Ra of 5.23 m and mean
Rz 26.31 m. Amongst the three finished and polished

Universal Research Journal of Dentistry September-December 2014 Vol 4 Issue 3

161

[Downloaded free from http://www.urjd.org on Monday, May 04, 2015, IP: 189.217.20.242]
Shetty, etal.: Effects of porcelain finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness

group of samples. The most efficient finishing and

polishing system was Shofu Ceramaster. Shofu samples
had a mean Ra 3.89 m and mean Rz of 18.57 m. The
second most efficient finishing and polishing system was
Kohinoor L highly filled diamond polishing paste, which
had a mean Ra of 4.66 m and mean Rz of 24.08 m. The
least efficient amongst the three groups was the SofLex
finishing and polishing system, which had a mean Ra of
4.83 m and mean Rz of 24.64 m. Finally, the glazed
group, which was the control group revealed a mean Ra of
1.06 m and a mean Rz of 3.43 m.
When Ra values of the various polished samples were
compared to each other, it revealed that the Ra values
Kohinoor L(mean Ra 4.65 m) samples did not have a
statistically significant difference to the Ra values of Shofu
samples(mean Ra 3.89 m) and SofLex samples(mean
Ra 4.82 m). Whereas the Ra values of the Shofu
samples(mean Ra 3.89 m) had a statistically significant
difference compared to the Ra values of the SofLex
samples(mean Ra 4.82 m).
The Rz values showed the exact same correlation
as the Ra values except the Rz values of
Kohinoor L samples(mean Ra 24.08 m) and Rz values
of Shofu samples(mean Ra 18.57 m), which showed
a statistically significant difference unlike the Ra values.
This finding is in agreement with previous reports
on the effect of different polishing techniques on the
surface roughness of several dental ceramics. In a study
done on refinishing of porcelain by using a refinishing kit,
the effects of a group of commercially available finishing
kits on Vita VMKbonded porcelain was investigated
qualitatively and quantitatively using scanning electron
microscope and surface profilometer. The kit proved
incapable of restoring a surface glaze to porcelain adjusted
using a fine(red band) diamond bur.[14,15]
Another study that was done to assess the effects of
porcelain polishing techniques on color and surface
texture of different porcelain systems, and it concluded
that chairside porcelain polishing systems were not able
to provide a porcelain surface as smooth as the glazed
surface for Ceramco 3 porcelains.[11]

CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of the study it was concluded that:
Among the three finishing and polishing systems tested,
Shofu Ceramaster diamondimpregnated silicon rubbers are
the most efficient, showing a statistically significant difference
in surface roughness compared to roughened samples.
162

However, none of the finishing and polishing systems

were able to provide a porcelain surface as smooth as the
glaze group.
The Kohinoor L highly filled diamond paste and SofLex
finishing and polishing system did not show significant
difference in surface roughness compared to the roughened
samples.
This study made use of a medium grit diamond in
order to simulate chairside adjustment since it provides
for better evaluation of relative efficiency of the three
finishing and polishing systems. However, clinically,
a fine grit diamond or a 12fluted carbide bur diamond
should be used for chairside adjustment of porcelain
restoration.

REFERENCES
1. PeytonFA. Restorative Dental Materials, 3rded. St. Louis: The
C. V. Mosby Co.; 1968. p.553-55.
2. Dental Porcelain. In: OBrien WJ, editor, Dental Materials and their
Selection, 3rded. Chicago: Quintessence; 2002. p.213-238.
3. Wright MD, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E, Thompson GA,
Runyan DA. Comparison of three systems for the polishing of an
ultralow fusing dental porcelain. JProsthet Dent 2004;92:48690.
4. AlWahadni A, Martin DM. Glazing and finishing dental porcelain:
Aliterature review. JCan Dent Assoc 1998;64:5803.
5. Metzler KT, Woody RD, Miller AW III, Miller BH. In vitro investigation
of the wear of human enamel by dental porcelain. JProsthet Dent
1999;81:35664.
6. Seghi RR, Rosenstiel SF, Bauer P. Abrasion of human enamel by
different dental ceramics invitro. JDent Res 1991;70:2215.
7. Jacobi R, Shillingburg HT, Duncanson MG. Acomparison of the
abrasiveness of six ceramic surfaces and gold. JProsthet Dent
1991;66:3039.
8. Jagger DC, Harrison A. An invitro investigation into the wear effects of
unglazed, glazed and polished porcelain on human enamel. JProsthet
Dent 1994;72:3203.
9. Mario Cezar Silva O, Vieira AC, Miranda CB, Seplveda MN. The
effect of polishing techniques on the surface roughness of a feldspathic
porcelain. Rev Odonto Cinc 2008;23:3302.
10. Kerem Y, Pelin O. Profilometer evaluation of the effect of various
polishing methods on the surface roughness in dental ceramics of
different structures subjected to repeated firings. Quintessence Int
2010;41:12531.
11. Tuncdemir AR, Dilber E, Kara HB, Ozturk AN. The effects of porcelain
polishing techniques on the color and surface texture of different
porcelain systems. Mater Sci Appl 2012;3:294300.
12. MartnezGomis J, Bizar J, Anglada JA, Sams J, Peraire M.
Comparative evaluation of four finishing systems on one ceramic
surface. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:747.
13. Sasahara RM, Ribeiro FC, Cesar PF, Yoshimura HN. Influence of
the finishing technique on surface roughness of dental porcelains with
different microstructures. Oper Dent 2006;315:57783.
14. Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan
S. Effect of different finishing techniques for restorative materials
on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. JProsthet Dent
2010;103:2217.
15. Monasky GE, Taylor DF. Studies on the wear of porcelain, enamel, and
gold. JProsthet Dent 1971;25:299306.
How to cite this article: Shetty M, Jaiman R, Krishna PD. The effects
of porcelain finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of
feldspathic porcelain: An in vitro study. Univ Res J Dent 2014;4:158-62.
Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared

Universal Research Journal of Dentistry September-December 2014 Vol 4 Issue 3