Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Polished versus autoglazed porcelain surfaces

L H Klausner, C B Cartwright, G T Charbeneau

    The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
    |February 1, 1982
    PubMed
    Summary

    Four porcelain polishing methods were tested. None significantly altered surface roughness compared to the original glazed surface, suggesting potential for maintaining dental restorations.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    The NERB. Its function and responsibilities.

    The New York state dental journal·1998
    Same author

    Pit and fissure sealants: why aren't they being used?

    Dentalhygienistnews·1991
    Same author

    A clinical scanning electron microscope study of tooth surface preparation and bonding.

    Australian dental journal·1990
    Same author

    Glass-ionomer cements in dental practice: a national survey.

    Operative dentistry·1989
    Same author

    Quantitative evaluation of approximal contacts in Class 2 composite resin restorations: a clinical study.

    Operative dentistry·1989
    Same author

    An evaluation of a glass ionomer luting agent: bacterial leakage.

    Journal of the American Dental Association (1939)·1987

    Area of Science:

    • Dental Materials Science
    • Biomaterials Engineering
    • Surface Characterization

    Background:

    • Porcelain restorations require polishing for esthetics and function.
    • Surface roughness impacts gingival health and occlusal wear.
    • Evaluating polishing sequences is crucial for clinical application.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare the surface roughness of porcelain polished by four different sequences.
    • To assess if polishing alters the surface compared to an unaltered glazed surface.

    Main Methods:

    • Four distinct porcelain polishing sequences were employed.
    • Surface roughness of polished porcelain was measured and compared to controls.
    • Statistical analysis was used to determine significant differences.

    Main Results:

    • No significant difference in initial surface roughness among glazed samples.
    • No significant difference between final polished surfaces and initial glazed surfaces across all sequences.
    • Significant differences noted between specific abrasives and within polishing steps.

    Conclusions:

    • The evaluated porcelain polishing sequences did not significantly alter surface roughness compared to the original glazed state.
    • Differences exist between abrasives and polishing steps, but their clinical impact requires further investigation.
    • Further research is needed to determine clinical significance for gingival health and occlusal wear.

    Related Experiment Videos