CLINICAL
PRACTICE
A B S T R A C T
This brief history of the dental
diamond bur is intended to pro-
vide both a historical perspec-
tive and an evaluation of the cur-
rent state of bur technology. An
understanding of the origins of
dental diamonds and the issues
facing manufacturers transforms
the dentist from a simple user
into an informed consumer. The
author contends that this can
improve dental care and enable
the dentist to collaborate with
manufacturers in developing im-
proved dental burs.
740 JADA, Vol. 129, June 1998
Copyright ©1998-2001 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
DENTAL CUTTING: THE HISTORICAL
DEVELOPMENT OF DIAMOND BURS
SHARON C. SIEGEL, D.D.S., M.S.; J. ANTHONY VON FRAUNHOFER,
M.SC., PH.D.
The explosion of new materials, techniques and overall knowledge
has transformed dentistry since the pioneering days of G.V. Black.
Nevertheless, certain aspects of dentistry have changed little over
the intervening 90-plus years—namely, the means whereby we pre-
pare the tooth for restoration. There have been some advances—no-
tably high-speed turbines, lasers and microabrasion—but, overall,
the vast majority of dentists still use the traditional handpiece and
bur for the majority of their clinical work. Furthermore, the design
of the dental bur has changed little over the same period despite ad-
vances in abrasive technology and general materials science.
The question, then, is whether the more mechanical aspects of
dentistry, notably tooth preparation, have benefited fully from the
recent technological explosion. This is a complex issue because so
many factors bear upon dental cutting, particularly the nature of
tooth preparation itself, individual variations in dental practice and
the wide variability in hard tissues. A further complicating factor is
the inherent variability among all types of manufactured products,
such as burs and handpieces. These considerations prompted this
review.
DENTAL CUTTING
For more than 100 years, burs have been used for tooth preparation
in dentistry. The first burs were manufactured from steel and later
from tungsten carbide, but the primary dental instrument for fixed
restorative dentistry is the diamond bur, which was introduced in
the late 19th century.1,2 Interestingly, dentists in many countries
use diamond burs for virtually all aspects of dentistry, including op-
erative procedures. The widespread use of diamond burs stems
from their reportedly greater resistance to abrasion and wear, di-
minished heat generation during use and longer service life.1,3-8
Despite this long and distinguished history, little detailed infor-
mation exists on tungsten carbide or diamond dental burs, and the
design criteria for these instruments are largely unknown and have
been minimally studied. This dichotomy arose because dental bur
design is based on engineering cutting tool principles, despite the
almost diametrically opposed methods and speeds of the two appli-

cations. In general engineering,
the cutting instrument (that is,
the mill or cutter) is fixed while
the workpiece is brought into
contact with the cutting tool (in
other words, a general principle
of a fixed tool and a moving
workpiece).
In contrast, the workpiece in
dentistry (the tooth) is fixed
while the tool (the handpiece
and bur) is brought into contact
with it. Engineering cutting and
drilling are slow-speed opera-
tions (5,000 to 10,000 revolu-
tions per minute, or rpm) while
dental cutting procedures are
performed over an incredibly
wide range of speeds (25,000 to
450,000 rpm). A further compli-
cating factor is that there are
few pertinent and/or quantifi-
able cutting data in the dental
literature. It is still not clear
whether the interaction be-
tween bur and tooth (through
the removal of hard tissue)
should be classified as cutting
or abrasion or should simply be
given the overall designation of
tribological (literally, frictional)
procedures.
In practice, a dentist works
on sound or carious enamel and
dentin, polymeric materials, ce-
ramics and metals using high-
or low-speed handpieces, a vari-
ety of burs and different hand-
piece loadings under variable
coolant regimens. However,
most of the original studies on
dental burs were performed be-
fore the advent of ultra-high-
speed handpieces (300,000 to
400,000 rpm)3,4,7,9 and, to this
day, reports on cutting studies
are few and far between in the
literature.
The International Organiza-
tion for Standardization, the
American National Standards
Institute and the American
Dental Association10 have writ-
Copyright ©1998-2001 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
ten standards to provide unifor-
mity in dental burs. Never-
theless, dentists are faced with
a tremendous variety of sizes
and shapes of diamond burs,
with little standardization in
nomenclature among manufac-
turers. Furthermore, there are
no standards covering bur-cut-
ting efficacy. The question of
bur-cutting efficacy resurfaced
with the introduction of the sin-
gle-patient-use, or disposable, di-
amond rotary instruments in the
mid-1980s. The efficacy of these
The introduction and
subsequent mass
production of the
high-speed air-turbine
dental contra-angle
handpiece in 1957
was the stimulus for
universal acceptance
of diamond burs by
the profession.
instruments is important to the
profession, but there are few re-
ports on their performance.11-14
THE FIRST DIAMOND
BURS
Before the 1890s, silicon carbide
discs and stones were used to
cut enamel because carbon steel
burs were inefficient at cutting
enamel.2 In 1897, Willman and
Schroeder, from the University
of Berlin, Germany, were credit-
ed with making the first dia-
mond dental bur.1 These early
burs were made by hammering
diamond powder into the sur-
face of soft copper or iron
blanks.2,15 The development of
diamond burs was stimulated,
at least in part, by the rapid
loss of shape of silicon carbide
CLINICAL PRACTICE
burs due to wear when used on
enamel.
The 1899 catalog of Claudius
Ash and Sons Ltd. listed “dia-
mond burs for trimming and
polishing enamel margins” and
advised lubricating the burs
well with water and running
them at high speed.16 The 1913
catalog of the S.S. White Dental
Manufacturing Co. described a
“diamond starting point” as a
narrow diamond wheel for re-
moving enamel when excavat-
ing a natural tooth.17
THE MODERN DIAMOND
BUR
The modern diamond bur was
created in 1932 by W.H.
Drendel, a German industrial-
ist, who developed a process for
bonding diamond points to
stainless steel shapes or
blanks.15 By 1939, diamond burs
were widely used in Europe and
had been introduced in the
United States in 12 shapes, all
in large sizes.18 Widespread ac-
ceptance of diamond burs was
limited from 1939 through 1946
because of the expense and im-
practical shapes and sizes then
available. However, interest in
diamond burs was growing be-
cause of the wartime critical
shortage of steel, silicon carbide
and other abrasive materials
used in rotary cutting instru-
ments.
The years after World War II
were marked by tremendous so-
cial upheavals as well as in-
creased levels of disposable in-
come and burgeoning state and
federal economies. The general
public became increasingly
aware of oral hygiene and de-
veloped a desire for improved
materials and treatment modal-
ities, while dentists wanted dia-
mond burs with shapes and grit
sizes that were more easily in-
JADA, Vol. 129, June 1998 741
CLINICAL PRACTICE

corporated into their practices.18

The introduction of higher-
speed handpieces (200,000 to Metal Matrix
300,000 rpm) and increasing co-
operation among dentists, den-
tal educators, the U.S. armed
services and manufacturers led
to the production of diamond
burs that the profession could
use at lighter cutting pressures Diamond Chip
but with greater efficiency. The
introduction and subsequent
mass production of the high-
speed air-turbine dental contra-
angle handpiece in 195719 was
the stimulus for universal ac-
ceptance of diamond burs by the
profession.

MANUFACTURE OF
DIAMOND BURS
Diamond burs have one or more
layers of diamond chips at-
tached to a shank that inserts
into the head of the handpiece.
The shank usually is fabricated
from a high-strength metal
such as tool steel, stainless steel
or another alloy. The working or
cutting end of the shank is ma-
chined to a specific shape or
blank and the diamond chips
are attached. The dimensions
and shapes of the blanks deter-
mine the ultimate size and
shape of the finished product
and are the basis for the num-
bering or designation systems
used by manufacturers.
The diamond chips are at-
tached to the machined metal
blank in various ways. The
most common method used
today is by electrolytic codeposi-
tion of natural or synthetic dia-
mond particles with a matrix
metal onto the blank. The pro-
cess is similar to the original
Drendel process,15 which is a
codeposition procedure that me-
chanically locks the diamond
particles onto the blank within
a nickel or duplex nickel-
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a dental diamond bur.
chromium matrix.20
Electrodeposition stages.
The overall electrodeposition
process is performed in several
stages. In the first stage, the
shank portion of the blank is
coated with an inert (noncon-
ducting) material that precludes
metal deposition on the coated
area; in this way, the portion of
the bur to be inserted into the
handpiece is protected from re-
ceiving any electrodeposit. The
prepared stainless steel blanks
are then flash-plated or strike-
plated with a thin coating of
nickel, commonly in an acid-
nickel-chloride solution.21 This
removes any passive films and
slightly etches the exposed sur-
face of the blank.
Shank of Bur
The bulk electrodeposition
process is performed in a nickel-
plating solution, commonly
nickel sulfamate, maintained
under carefully controlled con-
ditions of pH and temperature.22
This nickel-plating bath also
contains diamond particles.
Under the solution and elec-
trode agitation conditions of the
electrodeposition process, the
diamond chips deposit with the
nickel to form a coherent layer
on the bur blank. This initial
plating process tacks the dia-
mond particles onto the desig-
nated cutting portion of the
blank. The burs are then trans-
ferred to a second or build-up
nickel-plating bath where they
remain until the desired degree

742 JADA, Vol. 129, June 1998

Copyright ©1998-2001 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.

Figure 2. Scanning electron micrograph of a diamond bur showing ex-
cessive matrix material (original magnification × 250).
Figure 3. Scanning electron micrograph of a diamond bur showing insuf-
ficient matrix material (original magnification × 250).
of nickel coverage is attained.
Depending on whether the
diamond chips are deposited in
a single layer or in multiple lay-
ers, the overall process may
take 60 to 90 minutes for a con-
ventional (multiuse) diamond
bur. In contrast, various indus-
try sources have suggested that
the electroplating process for a
single-patient-use (disposable)
diamond bur takes only 20 to 30
minutes because of differences
in process conditions and quali-
ty control (L. Clark, Abrasive
Copyright ©1998-2001 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
Technology Inc., oral communi-
cation, Jan. 31, 1994).
Ideally, the electrodeposited
metal matrix covers 50 to 60
percent of the maximum dimen-
sion of the diamond chip, with a
number of facets remaining un-
covered (Figure 1). The exposed
facets provide the cutting action
while the matrix-engaged por-
tion of the chip ensures firm at-
tachment to the bur shank.23
The electrodeposition process
varies with the deposited metal
and the operating conditions, so
CLINICAL PRACTICE
that the characteristics of the
diamond bur vary according to
the manufacturer.
Quality control of the electro-
plating process is the most im-
portant aspect in the overall
manufacturing process (L.
Wantanabe, Product Evaluation
Laboratory, oral communica-
tion, January 1995) and has a
marked effect on bur-cutting ef-
ficiency. Typically, excessive
nickel deposition and coverage
of the diamond chips reduce the
number of exposed diamond
facets and decrease cutting effi-
ciency. In contrast, insufficient
or poor-quality nickel deposition
may cause loss of the diamond
chips as a result of inadequate
anchorage within the matrix.24
Figures 2 and 3 show excessive
and insufficient nickel deposi-
tion, respectively.
Alternative attachment
methods. Other methods of at-
taching the diamonds to the
stainless steel blank are braz-
ing and sintering. One company
uses a microbrazing technique
in which the combination of
heat and a vacuum causes the
diamond chips to adhere to the
matrix metal rather than by the
common mechanical locking of
electroplating. Another compa-
ny uses a sintering process to
attach a mixture of diamond
chips and powdered matrix
metal (typically various gold or
copper alloys) to the stainless
steel blanks. The mixture is
hot- or cold-pressed onto the
blank, which is followed by
heating to melt and fuse the
mass onto the blank.
A third approach is to attach
the diamonds to the blank with
an adhesive. A slurry of the sin-
tering alloy is then painted onto
the diamond-coated blank and
the bur is sintered, usually
under reduced pressure or in a
JADA, Vol. 129, June 1998 743
CLINICAL PRACTICE
vacuum, to its final shape and
density. These sintered dia-
mond instruments are typically
very expensive but are claimed
to exhibit extended service lives
(M. Logan, Brasseler USA, oral
communication, July 7, 1994).
Manufacturers of convention-
al diamond burs claim that
multilayering of the diamond
particles produces a better-
quality, more efficient and
longer-lasting product. Their ra-
tionale is that as the diamond
chips are worn or abraded from
the matrix, subsurface or deep-
er chips are exposed for the cut-
ting process. This multilayered
bur is more expensive to pro-
duce, with the increased cost
passed on to the dentist.
DIAMOND PARTICLES
The diamond particles used in
dental burs vary among manu-
facturers, and the important pa-
rameters include natural vs.
synthetic diamonds, the chip
size and shape as well as the in-
dividual particle faceting.
However, the influence of these
parameters on the cutting effi-
ciency of dental diamond burs is
still not fully understood.12
Natural diamonds are more
irregular in shape than synthet-
ics, and it has been suggested
that this irregularity makes
them easier to deposit within
the nickel matrix (L. Clark,
Abrasive Technology Inc., oral
communication, Jan. 31, 1994).
As a result, most bur manufac-
turers favor the use of natural
diamonds.12
Because of differences in the
dimensions of the diamond par-
ticles used by individual manu-
facturers, rugosities can vary
quite markedly among burs of
the same nominal coarseness
from different companies. Bur
coarseness is determined by the
744 JADA, Vol. 129, June 1998
Copyright ©1998-2001 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
size of the chips deposited onto
the blank; the chips are selected
by being sifted in a sieve of a
designated grit size or mesh.
The mesh size (sieve aperture) is
inversely related to the diameter
(in micrometers) of the particles
being sieved. Thus, the higher
the numerical designation of the
mesh or sieve, the smaller (finer)
the diamond particle. Typically,
a medium-grit diamond bur has
90- to 120-µm chips, which
Because of differ-
ences in the dimen-
sions of the diamond
particles used by in-
dividual manufactur-
ers, rugosities can
vary quite markedly
among burs of the
same nominal coarse-
ness from different
companies.
equates to a mesh size of 120 to
140. A coarse-grit bur commonly
is fabricated with chips sieved
through a mesh size of 80 to 100
and contains 150- to 160-µm-
diameter particles.
The manufacturer’s quality
controls determine the range of
chip dimensions within the mesh
sizing used for each category of
bur (that is, superfine, fine,
medium and coarse). Inevitably,
chip sizing varies among burs
from different manufacturers
and within batches of burs from
the same manufacturer.
SINGLE-PATIENT-USE
DIAMOND BURS
In recent years, there has been
a growing need within the den-
tal profession for inexpensive,
effective and disposable instru-
ments, with disposable, or sin-
gle-patient-use, burs following
this trend. Many companies
produce disposable burs, some
of which have been doing so for
more than 10 years. Most man-
ufacturers produce coarse- and
medium-grit burs, and some
also produce fine-grit burs with
both natural and synthetic dia-
mond chips being used.
The disposable diamond bur
was developed, at least in part,
in response to the recommenda-
tion by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the
ADA that organized dentistry
should minimize cross-contami-
nation risks.25 Clinical use of dis-
posable items absolutely pre-
vents transfer of microorganisms
between patients, provided that
the items are used on only one
patient.26 Clearly, burs can be a
mode of transmission of infec-
tious diseases (for example, hep-
atitis B, herpes virus and human
immunodeficiency virus) through
blood, saliva and soft tissue.
The CDC and ADA mandate
thorough cleansing and steril-
ization of multiuse burs.25,27,28
Cleaning includes presoaking,
hand scrubbing or ultrasonic
cleaning and then drying before
packaging for the sterilization
process.26 Further, many manu-
facturers recommend that dia-
mond burs be run against a
sharpening stone before ultra-
sonic cleaning or that the tips
be scrubbed with a wire brush
to remove any organic debris
before sterilization (M. Logan,
Brasseler USA, oral communi-
cation, July 7, 1994). Because
these procedures are time-con-
suming and the ADA recom-
mends use of disposable items
whenever possible, the clinical
use of disposable burs may be
advantageous.
Disposable diamond burs are

available in only a limited range
of shapes and rugosities. The
purchase price of conventional
(or multiuse) diamond burs is
considerably higher than that of
disposable burs, although recent
studies indicate comparable cut-
ting efficacies.12,13,29 The cost dif-
ferential is attributed to several
factors, including a thinner
layer of electroplated metal on
the disposable burs, fewer dia-
mond-containing layers, re-
stricted availability of bur
shapes and less-stringent quali-
ty control measures.
Typically, inspection of dis-
posable burs for defects is done
on a random-sample basis, with
a limited number of inspections
being made throughout the
manufacturing process. In con-
trast, each multiuse diamond
bur is inspected up to four times
during the manufacturing pro-
cess. Nevertheless, recent stud-
ies suggest that disposable dia-
mond burs are of acceptable
quality and should provide ade-
quate clinical service.12,13
CONCLUSIONS
Dentists should be knowledge-
able consumers regarding their
professional armamentarium.
The International Organization
for Standardization has pro-
posed a systematic numbering
system for diamond burs, but it
has not been universally adopt-
ed. While it is reasonable for
manufacturers to maintain pro-
prietary information regarding
their products, the basic manu-
facturing details should be
available to the dentist. This
might encourage greater inter-
action between the profession
and manufacturers, and lead to
improved dental burs.
Much is still not known
Copyright ©1998-2001 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
about the physical, chemical
and electrochemical interac-
tions that occur when the dia-
mond bur contacts the surface
of the tooth. Elucidating the
processes occurring during
tooth preparation is central to
dentistry. Moreover, new
knowledge in this area will aid
bur manufacturers in the devel-
opment of more efficient prod-
ucts and help dentists deliver
care more quickly with less
trauma to the dental pulp. ■
1. De Tomasi A. Storia ed evoluzione delle
frese diamantate in odontoiatria [The history
and evolution of diamond burs in dentistry].
Odontostomatol Implanto Protesi
1976;2(2):72-4.
2. Vinski I. Two hundred and fifty years of
rotary instruments in dentistry. Br Dent J
1979;146(7):217-23.
3. Walsh JP, Symmons HF. A comparison of
the heat production and mechanical efficiency
of diamond instruments, stones, and burs at
3,000 and 60,000 rpm. N Z Dent J
1949;45(219):28-32.
4. Peyton FA, Henry EE. Problems of cavity
preparation with modern instruments. New
York Dent J 1952;22:147-57.
5. Ingraham R, Tanner HM. The adaptation
of modern instruments and increased operat-
ing speeds to restorative procedures. JADA
1953;47(3):311-23.
6. Van de Waa CP. High speed rotary in-
struments in operative dentistry: review of
the literature. JADA 1956;53(3):298-304.
7. Hartley JL, Hudson DC, Sweeney WT,
Dickson G. Methods for evaluation of rotating
diamond-abrasive dental instruments. JADA
1957;54(5):637-44.
8. Janota M. Use of scanning electron mi-
croscopy for evaluating diamond points. J
Prosthet Dent 1973;29(1):88-93.
9. Larsen NH. The efficient use of carbide
burs and diamond points for cavity prepara-
tion: part 1. Dent Digest 1949;55(10):442-8.
10. Revised American National Standards
Institute/American Dental Association
Specification No. 23 for dental excavating
burs. 1982:1-16.
11. Christensen GJ, Christensen RP. Single
patient-use diamond rotary instruments. Clin
Res Associates News 1991;15(6):1-2.
12. Siegel SC, von Fraunhofer JA. Assessing
the cutting efficiency of dental diamond burs.
JADA 1996;127(6):763-72.
13. Christensen GJ, Christensen RP. Single
patient-use diamond rotary instruments. Clin
Res Associates News 1996;20(9):1-2.
14. Cohen BD, Bowley JF, Sheridan PJ. An
evaluation of operator preference of diamond
burs in coronal tooth preparation. Compend
Contin Educ Dent 1997;18(2):158-64.
15. Walsh JP. Critical review of cutting in-
struments in cavity preparation: I. diamond
stone. Int Dent J 1953;4(1):36-43.
16. Ash C. and sons. Dental catalog. 1899;
CLINICAL PRACTICE
Dr. Siegel is an assis- Dr. von Fraunhofer is
tant professor, a professor and direc-
Department of tor of Biomaterials,
Restorative Dentistry, Department of
School of Dentistry, Restorative Dentistry,
University of Maryland School of Dentistry,
at Baltimore, 666 W. University of
Baltimore St., Maryland at
Baltimore.
Baltimore, Md. 21201-
1586. Address reprint
requests to Dr. Siegel.
section E:28.
17. S.S. White Den-
tal Manufacturing Co.
Dental catalog. 1913:120.
18. Huntley RC. Adaptation of modern in-
struments with efficient operating speeds in
restorative dentistry. North-West Dent
1956;25(1):63-8.
19. Koblintz FF, Tateosian FD, Roemer FD,
Steen SD, Glenn JF. An overview of cutting
and wear related phenomena. In: The cutting
edge: interfacial dynamics of cutting and
grinding. Bethesda, Md.: U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare; 1976; DHEW
publication no. (NIH)76-760:151-68.
20. Harkness N, Davies H. The cleaning of
dental diamond burs. Br Dent J
1983;154(2):42-5.
21. von Fraunhofer JA. Basic metal finish-
ing. London: Elek Science; 1976:74-94.
22. Daniel P. Making diamond tools the in-
gredients for a successful formula. Indust
Diamond Rev 1967;27:466-70.
23. Phillips RW. Skinner’s science of dental
materials. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders;
1991:564-5.
24. Pines M, Schulman A, Vaidyanathan
TK. SEM evaluation of commercial diamond
stones (Abstract no. 509). J Dent Res
1981:437.
25. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Recommended infection-control
practices for dentistry. MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep 1993;42:3-12.
26. Miller CH, Patenik CJ. Infection control
and management of hazardous materials for
the dental team. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book;
1994:191-2.
27. [American Dental Association] Council
on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equip-
ment, Council on Dental Practice, Council on
Dental Therapeutics. Infection control recom-
mendations for the dental office and the den-
tal laboratory. JADA 1988;116(2):241-8.
28. [American Dental Association] Council
on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equip-
ment, Council on Dental Therapeutics, Coun-
cil on Dental Research, Council on Dental
Practice. Infection control recommendations
for the dental office and the dental laboratory.
JADA 1992;123(8)(Supplement):1-8.
29. Naylor WP, Beatty MW. Materials and
techniques in fixed prosthodontics. Dent Clin
North Am 1992;36(3):655-92.
JADA, Vol. 129, June 1998 745