Medical

Communication

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

Alireza

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

ABSTRACT

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.

529

ARTICLE INFORMATION:

*Corresponding Author: saharraissi0@gmail.com

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

reserved.

Online Contents Available at:

http//www.bbrc.in/

DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/10.3/29

INTRODUCTION

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

530 COMPARISON OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS BETWEEN CO

LASER AND TYPICAL GLAZING BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

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.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

FIGURE 1

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS COMPARISON OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS BETWEEN CO

LASER AND TYPICAL GLAZING 531

Alireza Izadi et al.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

(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.

DISCUSSION

According to performed statistical tests in this study and

obtained data from these tests, VITA porcelains group

532 COMPARISON OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS BETWEEN CO

LASER AND TYPICAL GLAZING BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

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).

FIGURE 4

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS COMPARISON OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS BETWEEN CO

LASER AND TYPICAL GLAZING 533

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.

534 COMPARISON OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS BETWEEN CO

LASER AND TYPICAL GLAZING BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

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.

CONCLUSION

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

laser.

REFERENCES

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-

451.

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-

1301.

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),

pp.613-620.

Fairhurst CW, Lockwood P E, RingleRD, Thompson WO., 1992.

The effect of glazeon porcelain strength.Dent.Mater, 8, pp.

203-207.

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),

pp.229-234.

Alireza Izadi et al.

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS COMPARISON OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS BETWEEN CO

LASER AND TYPICAL GLAZING 535

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-

tions.

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).