Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm. 10(3): 529-535 (2017)
Comparison of surface roughness between CO
laser and
typical glazing on two types of porcelain vita and ivoclar
Alireza Izadi, DDS, PhD
, Bijan Heidari, DDS, PhD
, Shahin Kasrai, DDS, PhD
Soltanian, DDS, PhD
and Sahar Raissi*, PhD
Department of Prosthodontics, Hamadan University of Medical Science, Hamadan, Iran
Assistant Professor, Prosthodontics Department, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical
Sciences, Iran
Existence defects in porcelain is directly related to the techniques of porcelain and  ring cycles. Adjust glazed surface
during clinical work to correct occlusal interferences surface and proximal are common, Which Leads to increased surface
roughness. So do Glaze and polishing after Adjust process is essential. In this in vitro study evaluated two types of com-
mercial porcelain with different crystalline content, VITA (Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) and porcelain IPS d.Sign
(Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY) each of the samples of porcelain were divided into 4 groups according to the two types of
porcelain used, generally divided into 8 groups were divided. The laser co2 laser (ultra-dream pluse, Guro-Gu, Seoul, Korea)
wavelength 10.6 (mμ) and with the 30W and the time of exposure 1 and 1/5 minutes was used. Standard polished group
with sandy paper with a grit similar, According to the America Academy aesthetic dentistry was prepare. Surface roughness
were evaluated using a pro lometer and the two-way ANOVA test and post hoc Tukey test was used for statistical analysis
of the samples. The  ndings of this study indicated that porcelain surface roughness by CO
laser glazed signi cantly less
than typical Glaze, however, ANOVA test between average 5 groups length consecutive depth, did not show signi cant
differences, Also, the surface roughness of CO
laser glazed porcelain were signi cantly lower than the polished porcelain.
The surface roughness of glazed porcelain by laser CO
was less than of typical glaze.
*Corresponding Author:
Received 1
June, 2017
Accepted after revision 2
Sep, 2017
BBRC Print ISSN: 0974-6455
Online ISSN: 2321-4007 CODEN: USA BBRCBA
Thomson Reuters ISI ESC and Crossref Indexed Journal
NAAS Journal Score 2017: 4.31 Cosmos IF: 4.006
© A Society of Science and Nature Publication, 2017. All rights
Online Contents Available at:
DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/10.3/29
Dental porcelains have a signi cant role in dentistry due
to properties such as color stability and chemical stabil-
ity and low thermal conductivity and high bio compat-
ibility but limited fracture strength of these materials
limits their application. Presence of available defects in
porcelain has a major effect on reducing life span of
porcelain. Presence of available defects has direct rela-
tionship with process technique and porcelain  ring
Alireza Izadi et al.
cycles. Surface roughness increases followed by porce-
lain adjustment of surface pore, which acts as an impor-
tant center of stress focus and often leads to catastrophic
failure, (Morena 1986 Scherrer 1999, Griggs 1996, Kelly
1997, Raigrodski 2001 Raigrodski 2004, Gonzaga 2009,
Garcia 2015, Alavi 2017 and Lohbauer 2017).
Glazing includes porcelain  ringcycle near the sin-
tering temperature (Chang 2011) and (Quinn 2012) por-
celain surface melts during this cycle and Glassy Phase
llsSurface irregularities, the glazing is done as auto
glaze and over glaze that both of whichglazingtech-
niques createsmoother surface with higher glass level
and lower  ows (Eppler 1983) and (Marshall 1993).
Papers show that glazing has important role in reducing
plaque accumulation in the porcelain surface (Brackett
1989) and (Motro 2012) and (Yilmaz 2010).
Using microwave techniques has been proposed as
an alternative to typical glazing recently (Barghi 1976).
Microwave leads to less surface defect and a smoother
surface and requires lesstime. Using Co
laser leads to
reducing surface roughness in comparison with typical
laser but just in laser with high power co
, better color
has shown than typical glazing (Podshadley 1966). Por-
celain surface density is created by different techniques
in a wide range of ceramic materials which can be done
by Thermal, mechanical and polished  ring and putting
a layer of porcelain with coef cient thermal expan-
sion less than porcelain. CO
laser is very convenient
for improving the level of dental porcelain because the
emitted wavelength by this laser is absorbed entirely by
porcelain (Fairhurst 1992). It was suggested that surface
treatment of porcelain by laser prevents formation of
micro cracks and leads to increased mechanical strength
of porcelain. The present study reviews CO
laser as
a surface treatment for porcelain glaze and compares
results with typical glazing.
In this study which is empirical_Laboratory type, 2
types of commercial porcelain with different crystal-
line content of VITA VM13 (Zahnfabrik, BadSäckingen,
Germany) and porcelain IPS d.Sign (Ivoclar Vivadent,
Amherst, NY) were selected (Barghi 1976) and (Bren-
tel 2011), a brass generator was used to standardize the
samples with 5 5 10 mm. Porcelain was placed in
generator after mixing the powder and liquid. Extra
humidity was taken by a handkerchief (Kleenex; Kim-
berly-clark, Neenah, wis) and all samples were placed on
wetness (honey comb mesh tray; American dental sup-
ply; Allentown pa) andwere sintered in porcelain fur-
nace (program at p 200; ivoclar vivadent) according to
manufacturer’s instructions as described below;
First, the samples were dried for three minutes, after3
minutes ofstanding onpreheat stage with speed of 83 ° C
per minute were reached to temperature of 913 degrees Cel-
sius and were kept at this temperature for 30 seconds.For
sample preparation, two  ring cycles were performedfor
wind porcelain and enamel and one cycle was performed
for glazing. Typical cyclewas roughed by a diamond bur
Alireza Izadi et al.
(2134F, KG Sorensen) with high speed along with water of
samples surface (similar to clinical conditions of occlusal
adjustment) and were divided into 4 groups that were
divided into 8 groups generallybased on porcelain trade
type. In this study, co2 laser (ultra-dream pluse, Guro-Gu,
Seoul, Korea) was used with a wavelength 10.6 (mμ) and
with power 30 W and exposure time 1 and 1/5 minutes.
Co2 laser radiation is continuously and focuses directly
on a samples that are placed on refractory base. Spot size
of co2 laser was 5/0 cm.
Remaining sample of each type of porcelain was
glazed in the usual way of furnace glazing and accord-
ing to glazing manufacturer’s instructions, also standard
polished group was prepared with sandpaper bysame
grits according to recommendation of American Acad-
emy of Cosmetic Dentistry (P360, P400 and P1200)
(Fairhurst 1992).To investigate surface roughness, a pro-
lometer (Mitutoyo Surf Test 402 Analyser; Mitutoyo
crop, Kawasaki, Japan) was used with a pen diameter
12.5 mμ, pen power 10mg (Prasad 2009) and movement
speed of co2 laser on the surface was 10 mm /min (Sgura
2015) and manually, and the entire sample length was
scanned by pro lometer (Mitutoyo Surf Test 402 Ana-
lyser; Mitutoyo crop, Kawasaki, Japan).
To measure surface roughness of samples by pro lom-
eterdevice, porcelains sample was placed in such a way
that device indenter placed in middle part of sample in
terms of width, then three times measurement were per-
formed for each sample in this way, that average of three
measured values for each sample was considered as an
average of surface roughness for that sample. Parameters
of the surface roughness were calculated by Ra (average
of surface roughness heights that is obtained from divid-
ing total area of roughness on sample length) and Rz (a
fth of sum of 5 consecutive peaks of surface roughness
or in other words the average of the tallest roughness
peaks (heights) in 5 sequence length of the sample that
is measured according to micrometer) and Rpm /rz (Rpm
is the average of depth length of 5 samples subsequent
length). Two-way ANOVA test and post hoc Tukey test
was used for statistical analysis of the samples.
According to performed statistical tests in this study and
obtained data from these tests, VITA porcelains group
Alireza Izadi et al.
which had been typically glazed,had no signi cant dif-
ference with any group, but IVOCLAR porcelains group
that was typically glazed had more surface roughness
compared to VITA porcelains group which had been
glazed with laser for 1.5 minutes. Although Vita porce-
lains that had been typically glazed, had no signi cant
difference with any group, detection probability of this
difference was existed in case of using more accurate
methods such as SEM.
In particular, use of SEM could provide worthy help in
detecting a difference of surface roughness in typical glaz-
ing groups with groups that were glazed withCO2 laser.
Also, porcelains Microstructure structure can be a reason
for mechanical and apparent difference of porcelain, that
this matter can be a justi cation for providing different
results, for example, in study of Sarac et al. (2005) dif-
ference in samples harness had been expressed as an evi-
dence for providing different results in similar methods of
polishing, Also, inmentioned study has been stated that
the difference in surface roughness of the samples can be
due to differences in samples characteristics (Sarac 2006);
therefore, it is advised to evaluate structure of porcelains
Microstructure with using X-ray in future studies.
There is signi cant difference between VITA porce-
lains group that have been glazed with co2 laser for 1
minute with VITA porcelains group that have been glazed
with co2 laser for 1.5 minutes, whichis demonstrator of
effect of time of using CO
laser for glazing. Regarding the
IVOCLAR porcelains, in case of using accurate methods
to survey the surface roughness, it was possible that time
of using co2 laser had signi cant difference in surface
roughness of samples in mentioned porcelain. Therefore,
using more accurate methods of handling surface rough-
ness such as use of SEM is suggested for further study.
Reham & coworkers in 2014 surveyed the roughness
and surface properties of porcelain after typical glazing,
glazing with xeclexcimer and CO
laser. They observed-
more smoother and a more uniform surface than typical
glazing in the survey with electron microscope in high
power of both laser (Reham et al., 2014), which is sec-
onder of present study  ndings.
ANOVA test also showed that there is signi cant dif-
ference between Rz of used porcelain groups in study
that had been glazed typical with groups that had been
glazed with co
laser (Rzof groups that have been glazed
with co
laser is lower than groups that have been typi-
cally glazed) but signi cant difference was not observed
between Ra and Rpm of groups. Ricardo and co workers
considered CO
laser with three different powers as an
alternative to oven glaze on 2 types of porcelain in 2013.
Results of this study showed that the amount of surface
roughness had no signi cant difference among various
brands ofporcelain. They observed reduction of surface
roughness in laser group with power 45w/cm2 compared
to the control group but signi cant difference was not
observed between other groups (Ricardo et al., 2013).
Alireza Izadi et al.
In present study, similar results of this study were
obtained and was shown that, there is difference
between two types of porcelain (2 brand types ) that was
used in the study only when glazing method was used
by CO
laser in terms of surface roughness and other-
wise, there is no signi cant difference between the types
of different not glazed (only were polished) porcelain
(different brands), it should be noted here that a large
number of studies only survey the Ra parameter (Prasad
2009) and (Yilmaz 2010) and (Güler 2009); while due to
importance and impact of the Rz parameter, some differ-
ences in this study can be justi ed with other studies to
this reason, also this problem is demonstrator of meas-
urement necessity of the Rz parameter to identify sur-
face roughness more accurately. Furthermore, surveying
more parameters about surface roughness as was done
in this study, can provide more useful information about
surface morphology to us, it should be noted that the
use of the Rz parameter and ratio Rpm / Rz was essential
perfectly alongside Ra parameter and using mentioned
parameters in present study is another reason for differ-
ence of some  ndings of this study with other studies
and this is the strength of present study. Also, in present
study, glazed groups that were only polished had no sig-
ni cant difference.
Byeong-Hoon and his colleagues performed a study
in 2013 and surveyed the improvement of feldspathic
porcelain surface roughness by a new rubber wheels
which contained uniform particles of carbide silicon and
small diamond particles on two sinterd and build por-
celain in CAD-CAM method. The surface roughness of
both porcelains in surface polishing methods was lower
than glazing method (Huaw 2013), which reasons the
differences between  ndings of Byung-Hoonand his col-
leagues with present study can be known in lack of our
different polishingmethods usage, using different com-
mercial brands of materials, different used methodolo-
gies in the studies and different investigated variables.
In the present study, signi cant difference was not
observed in their surface roughness between different
porcelains with same method of glazing, but a signi -
cant difference was observed between porcelains that
had been glazed with co2 laser method with porce-
lains that had beentypically glazed or with porcelains
that had not been glazed. Sumitsethi and his colleagues
surveyed and compared surface roughness inautogaze,
reglaze and chair side polished method of porcelain
surface in two vita vmk94 andivoclar classic porcelain
in 2012. Their results showed that different types of
porcelains (different brands) had no signi cant differ-
ence in terms of surface roughness in different glazing
methods (Prasad 2009), which is con rmation of present
study. As mentioned in present study, no signi cant dif-
ference was not observed between control groups that
had been only polished in terms of surface roughness,
but it was possible toobserve a similar result to study
of Vieira etal, where different polishing methods were
used (Vieira et al., 2013), because they observed that the
lowest surface roughness is related to VM7 ceramics
with polishing method with Shofu system between VM7
and VM13 ceramics that had been studied, in the study
thatevaluate and surveythesurface roughness in differ-
ent ways of nishing and polishing dental ceramics that
also had signi cant difference with other groups and
other methods of  nishing and polishing statistically.
According to a study of Barghi and associates (1975)
and study of Karaksi and associates (1993), the best mode
of surface roughness that leads to smoother surface and
increasedmechanical strength of the material Compared
with different systems of polishing and  nishing of using
glazing (Barghi 1975) and ( El-Karaksi 1993), that their
ndings arecon rmation of the results of present study
based onexistenceof a signi cant difference between the
glazed groups with not glazed groups. Fuzzi and cow-
orkers (Fuzzi et al., 1996) also in a study that performed
about evaluating surface roughness in different ways of
polishing and glazing in 1996, concluded that glazing
method is preferable to polishing method which their
ndings are con rmation of the results of present study.
Also Brackett SE et al. (1989) preferred glazing method
in a study that examined the effect of glazing method in
porcelain strength and surface modi cations (Brackett
1989). Also Al-Wahadni (2006) observed in his study
that glazing causes creating a smoother surface and less
surface roughness compared to different methods of  n-
ishing and polishing (Al-Wahadni 2006), although pre-
sent study and many other studies are con rmation of
these  ndings based on priority of glazing in reducing
the surface roughness compared with different methods
of polishing and  nishing.
However, some studies, including Kelly and colleagues
(1996) were presented different results, theydidn’t
observe signi cant difference about surface roughness
in their study between glazing method with  nishing
and polishing in different ceramics (Kelly et al. 1996);
demonstrated that results of these  ndings can be found
in type of used ceramics and used polishing,  nishing
and glazing methods instudy and used laboratory equip-
ment. In contrast to our  ndings, Sarac and coworkers
(2006) demonstrated that there is no signi cant statis-
tical difference between surface roughness of glazed
ceramicswith polished ceramic with different systems of
polishing, Furthermore, there are studies that have been
claimed that the surface roughness of polished ceram-
icsare less than glazed ceramics, like the Hulterstro¨m
et al. (1993) and NettoJu’nior et al. (2006) and Wright
(2004); (Hulterström 1993) and (Wright 2004), but the
ndings difference can be found in used ceramics, exist-
Alireza Izadi et al.
ence of laboratory errors and used methods in glazing
and polishing materials.
Also, we can claim based on mentioned studies that
consensus is not available between researchers about the
effects of glazing or different ways of  nishing and pol-
ishing to reduce the surface roughness of ceramic and
porcelains, So, existence of different and even contradic-
tory  ndings in studies is not far, results can be differ-
ent due to use of produced commercial different brands,
different used methodologies in the studies and different
investigated variables and way of porcelain preparation,
for example, the temperature at which the samples are
prepared in their presence can have big impact in surface
roughness of samples,we should note that created tem-
perature by thermocouple can’t alwaysbe demonstrator
ofreal temperature, because the surrounding tempera-
ture can cause the loss of some of these temperatures.
If you have not considered this matter, it may provide
different and even con icting results about the surface
roughness in different glazing methods.
Sarikaya and Güler (2010) addressed to effect of dif-
ferent polishing techniques at the surfaces ofdental por-
celains surface roughness in a study. Their  ndings which
is con rmation ofpresent study  ndings also wad showed
that using glazing can reduce the surface roughness com-
pared to other polishing methods (Sarikaya 2010). Also,
Tholt et al. (2006) surveyed and measured the surface
roughness of prepared dental ceramics with different  n-
ishing techniques by using Atomic Force Microscope and
Pro lometer, (Tholt et al., 2006). They found that there
are differences betweendifferent porcelains with different
ways of polishing, as well as they found as present study
that glazing method causes less surface roughness com-
pared with other  nishing and polishing methods. Speed
of the used method in present study for porcelain glaz-
ing, is the main advantage of this method compared to
autoglazing techniques to typical method.
RZ item of porcelains surface roughness amount (Aver-
age of maximum violence height)with typical glazing-
was signi cantly greatercompared to porcelains that
were glazed by co
laser, although the ANOVA test
between Ra, Rpm groups didn’t show signi cant differ-
ence. Also, not glazed porcelains that had just polished,
had more surface roughness signi cantly compared to
porcelains that were glazed by co
Alavi, A.A., Behroozi, Z. and Eghbal, F.N., 2017. The Shear
Bond Strength of Porcelain Laminate to Prepared and Unpre-
pared Anterior Teeth. Journal of Dentistry, 18(1), p.50.
Al-Wahadni, A., 2006. An in vitro investigation into the sur-
face roughness of 2 glazed, unglazed, and re nished ceramic
materials. Quintessence international, 37(4).
Barghi, N., King, C.J. and Draughn, R.A., 1975. A study of por-
celain surfaces as utilized in  xed prosthodontics. The Journal
of prosthetic dentistry, 34(3), pp.314-319.
Barghi, N., Alexander, L. and Draughn, R.A., 1976. When to
glaze—an electron microscope study. The Journal of prosthetic
dentistry, 35(6), pp.648-653.
Brackett, S.E., Leary, J.M., Turner, K.A. and Jordan, R.D., 1989.
An evaluation of porcelain strength and the effect of surface
treatment. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 61(4), pp.446-
Brentel, A.S., Kantorski, K.Z., Valandro, L.F., Fucio, S.B., Pup-
pin-Rontani, R.M. and Bottino, M.A., 2011. Confocal laser
microscopic analysis of bio lm on newer feldspar ceramic.
Operative dentistry, 36(1), pp.43-51.
el-Karaksi, A.O., Shehab, G.I. and Eskander, M.E., 1993. Effect
of reglazing and of polishing on the surface roughness of
new ceramic restorations (Hi-ceram). Egyptian dental journal,
39(3), pp.485-490.
Fuzzi, M., Zaccheroni, Z. and Vallania, G., 1996. Scanning
electron microscopy and pro lometer evaluation of glazed
and polished dental porcelain. International Journal of Pros-
thodontics, 9(5).
Garcia, R.D.P., 2015. Efeitos citotóxicos e genotóxicos das ligas
de solda de prata em ortodontia: revisão sistemática (Master’s
thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul).
Gonzaga, C.C., Okada, C.Y., Cesar, P.F., Miranda, W.G. and
Yoshimura, H.N., 2009. Effect of processing induced particle
alignment on the fracture toughness and fracture behavior of
multiphase dental ceramics. dental materials, 25(11), pp.1293-
Chang, C.W., Waddell, J.N., Lyons, K.M. and Swain, M.V., 2011.
Cracking of porcelain surfaces arising from abrasive grind-
ing with a dental air turbine. Journal of Prosthodontics, 20(8),
Fairhurst CW, Lockwood P E, RingleRD, Thompson WO., 1992.
The effect of glazeon porcelain strength.Dent.Mater, 8, pp.
Giordano, R.A., Campbell, S. and Pober, R., 1994. Flexural
strength of feldspathic porcelain treated with ion exchange,
overglaze, and polishing. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry,
71(5), pp.468-472.
Griggs, J.A., Thompson, J.Y. and Anusavice, K.J., 1996. Effects
of  aw size and auto-glaze treatment on porcelain strength.
Journal of dental research, 75(6), pp.1414-1417.
Güler, A.U., Sarikaya, I.B., Güler, E. and Yücel, A.Ç., 2009.
Effect of  ller ratio in adhesive systems on the shear bond
strength of resin composite to porcelains. Operative dentistry,
34(3), pp.299-305.
Hulterström, A.K. and Bergman, M., 1993. Polishing systems
for dental ceramics. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 51(4),
Alireza Izadi et al.
Kelly, J.R., Nishimura, I. and Campbell, S.D., 1996. Ceramics in
dentistry: historical roots and current perspectives. The Jour-
nal of prosthetic dentistry, 75(1), pp.18-32.
Kelly, J.R., 1997. Ceramics in restorative and prosthetic den-
tistry. Annual Review of Materials Science, 27(1), pp.443-468.
Lohbauer, U., Scherrer, S.S., Della Bona, A., Tholey, M., van
Noort, R., Vichi, A., Kelly, J.R. and Cesar, P.F., 2017. ADM guid-
ance-Ceramics: all-ceramic multilayer interfaces in dentistry.
Dental Materials, 33(6), pp.585-598.
Marshall, D.B., Evans, A.G., Yakub, B.K., Tien, J.W. and Kino,
G.S., 1983, February. The nature of machining damage in brit-
tle materials. In Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (Vol. 385,
No. 1789, pp. 461-475). The Royal Society.
Morena, R., Lockwood, P.E. and Fairhurst, C.W., 1986. Fracture
toughness of commercial dental porcelains. Dental Materials,
2(2), pp.58-62.
Motro, P.F.K., Kursoglu, P. and Kazazoglu, E., 2012. Effects of
different surface treatments on stainability of ceramics. The
Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 108(4), pp.231-237.
Prasad, S., Monaco, E.A., Kim, H., Davis, E.L. and Brewer, J.D.,
2009. Comparison of porcelain surface and  exural strength
obtained by microwave and conventional oven glazing. The
Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 101(1), pp.20-28.
Podshadley, A.G. and Harrison, J.D., 1966. Rat connective tis-
sue response to pontic materials. The Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry, 16(1), pp.110-118.
Quinn, G.D., Hoffman, K. and Quinn, J.B., 2012. Strength and
fracture origins of a feldspathic porcelain. Dental Materials,
28(5), pp.502-511.
Raigrodski, A.J. and Chiche, G.J., 2001. The safety and ef cacy
of anterior ceramic  xed partial dentures: a review of the lit-
erature. The journal of prosthetic dentistry, 86(5), pp.520-525.
Raigrodski, A.J., 2004. Contemporary materials and technolo-
gies for all-ceramic  xed partial dentures: a review of the lit-
erature. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 92(6), pp.557-562.
Reham M. Abdallah1, Ibrahim M. Hammouda, Mostafa Kamal
Mohammed, OssamaB. Abouelatta and Abeer A., 2014. El
Fallal Surface treatment of dental porcelain: CO2 laseras an
alternative to oven glaze(2014)Laser Glazing Interaction with
DentalCeramics.BJR, pp. 090-104.
Sarac, D., Sarac, Y.S., Yuzbasioglu, E. and Bal, S., 2006. The
effects of porcelain polishing systems on the color and surface
texture of feldspathic porcelain. The Journal of prosthetic den-
tistry, 96(2), pp.122-128.
Sarikaya, I. and Güler, A.U., 2010. Effects of different polish-
ing techniques on the surface roughness of dental porcelains.
Journal of Applied Oral Science, 18(1), pp.10-16.
Scherrer, S.S., Kelly, J.R., Quinn, G.D. and Xu, K., 1999. Frac-
ture toughness (K IC) of a dental porcelain determined by frac-
tographic analysis. Dental Materials, 15(5), pp.342-348.
Sgura, R., Reis, M.C., Hernandes, A.C., de Abreu Fantini, M.C.,
Andreeta, M.R.B. and Medeiros, I.S., 2015. Surface treatment
of dental porcelain: CO2 laser as an alternative to oven glaze.
Lasers in medical science, 30(2), pp.661-667.
Tholt, B., Miranda-Júnior, W.G., Prioli, R., Thompson, J. and
Oda, M., 2006. Surface roughness in ceramics with different
nishing techniques using atomic force microscope and pro-
lometer. Operative dentistry, 31(4), pp.442-449.
Vieira, A.C., Oliveira, M.C., Lima, E.M., Rambob, I. and Leite,
M., 2013. Evaluation of the surface roughness in dental ceram-
ics submitted to different  nishing and polishing methods. The
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 13(3), pp.290-295.
Wright, M.D., Masri, R., Driscoll, C.F., Romberg, E., Thompson,
G.A. and Runyan, D.A., 2004. Comparison of three systems
for the polishing of an ultra-low fusing dental porcelain. The
Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 92(5), pp.486-490.
Wu, H., Fan, J.W., Chao, M.J., Fu, L.J. and Chen, H., 2013.
Laser Glazing of Peacock Blue Glaze on Porcelain. In Advanced
Materials Research (Vol. 712, pp. 366-372). Trans Tech Publica-
Yilmaz, K. and Ozkan, P., 2010. The methods for the generation
of smoothness in dental ceramics. Compend Contin Educ Dent,
31(1), pp.30-2.
Yilmaz, K. and Özkan, P., 2010. Pro lometer evaluation of the
effect of various polishing methods on the surface roughness
in dental ceramics of different structures subjected to repeated
rings. Quintessence International, 41(7).