Display options
Cite
Kukiattrakoon B, Hengtrakool C, Kedjarune-Leggat U. Effect of acidic agents on surface roughness of dental ceramics. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011;8(1):6-15
Kukiattrakoon, B., Hengtrakool, C., & Kedjarune-Leggat, U. (2011). Effect of acidic agents on surface roughness of dental ceramics. Dental research journal, 8(1), 6-15.
Kukiattrakoon, Boonlert, et al. "Effect of acidic agents on surface roughness of dental ceramics." Dental research journal vol. 8,1 (2011): 6-15.
Kukiattrakoon B, Hengtrakool C, Kedjarune-Leggat U. Effect of acidic agents on surface roughness of dental ceramics. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011;8(1):6-15. PMID: 22132009; PMCID: PMC3177383.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011;8(1):6-15.

Effect of acidic agents on surface roughness of dental ceramics.

Dental research journal

Boonlert Kukiattrakoon, Chanothai Hengtrakool, Ureporn Kedjarune-Leggat

Affiliations

  1. Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand.

PMID: 22132009 PMCID: PMC3177383

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An increase in surface roughness of ceramics may decrease strength and affect the clinical success of ceramic restorations. However, little is known about the effect of acidic agents on ceramic restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of dental ceramics after being immersed in acidic agents.

METHODS: Eighty-three ceramic disk specimens (12.0 mm in diameter and 2.0 mm in thickness) were made from four types of ceramics (VMK 95, Vitadur Alpha, IPS Empress Esthetic, and IPS e.max Ceram). Baseline data of surface roughness were recorded by profilometer. The specimens were then immersed in acidic agents (citrate buffer solution, pineapple juice and green mango juice) and deionized water (control) at 37°C for 168 hours. One group was immersed in 4% acetic acid at 80°C for 168 hours. After immersion, surface roughness was evaluated by a profilometer at intervals of 24, 96, and 168 hours. Surface characteristics of specimens were studied using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed using two-way repeated ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons (α = 0.05).

RESULTS: For all studied ceramics, all surface roughness parameters were significantly increased after 168 hours immersion in all acidic agents (P < 0.05). After 168 hours in 4% acetic acid, there were significant differences for all roughness parameters from other acidic agents of all evaluated ceramics. Among all studied ceramics, Vitadur Alpha showed significantly the greatest values of all surface roughness parameters after immersion in 4% acetic acid (P < 0.001). SEM photomicrographs also presented surface destruction of ceramics in varying degrees.

CONCLUSION: Acidic agents used in this study negatively affected the surface of ceramic materials. This should be considered when restoring the eroded tooth with ceramic restorations in patients who have a high risk of erosive conditions.

Keywords: Aluminum oxide; Aluminum silicate; Dental porcelain; Surface properties

References

  1. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Sep;140(9):1137-43 - PubMed
  2. Int J Prosthodont. 2006 Mar-Apr;19(2):143-53 - PubMed
  3. Int J Prosthodont. 2008 Jul-Aug;21(4):307-11 - PubMed
  4. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003 Jun;14(6):557-66 - PubMed
  5. Br Dent J. 1965 Sep 21;119(6):251-67 - PubMed
  6. Biomaterials. 1999 Apr;20(8):733-46 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Oral Sci. 2000 Apr;108(2):104-9 - PubMed
  8. J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Jan;75(1):18-32 - PubMed
  9. J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Oct;29(10):997-1002 - PubMed
  10. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002 Sep 15;61(4):541-50 - PubMed
  11. Aust Dent J. 2001 Jun;46(2):100-7 - PubMed
  12. Monogr Oral Sci. 2006;20:44-65 - PubMed
  13. Dent Mater. 1999 Mar;15(2):79-86 - PubMed
  14. J Oral Rehabil. 1995 Jun;22(6):421-7 - PubMed
  15. Dent Mater. 2000 Nov;16(6):381-8 - PubMed
  16. Int J Prosthodont. 1990 Sep-Oct;3(5):430-40 - PubMed
  17. Dent Mater. 1997 Jan;13(1):13-9 - PubMed
  18. J Prosthet Dent. 1970 Apr;23(4):407-11 - PubMed
  19. Acta Odontol Scand. 2010 Jan;68(1):1-10 - PubMed
  20. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996 Apr;104(2 ( Pt 2)):151-5 - PubMed
  21. Clin Oral Investig. 2003 Mar;7(1):27-31 - PubMed
  22. Int J Prosthodont. 1992 Sep-Oct;5(5):434-40 - PubMed
  23. Dent Mater. 1997 Jul;13(4):258-69 - PubMed
  24. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Jul;90(1):31-41 - PubMed
  25. Dent Mater. 2006 Aug;22(8):735-45 - PubMed
  26. Adv Dent Res. 1992 Sep;6:82-9 - PubMed
  27. Aust Dent J. 1998 Oct;43(5):362-6 - PubMed
  28. J Oral Sci. 2009 Sep;51(3):443-50 - PubMed

Publication Types