• Abou-Ayash, Samir
• Fonseca, Manrique
• Paula, Marcella Silva De
• Kahveci̇, Çi̇ğdem
• Çakmak, Gülce
• Akay, Canan
• Donmez, Mustafa Borga
• Yilmaz, Burak

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>To evaluate the surface roughness, optical properties, and microhardness of additively or subtractively manufactured CAD‐CAM materials after simulated brushing and coffee thermal cycling.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Material and methods</jats:title><jats:p>Two additively manufactured resins (Crowntec, CT and VarseoSmile Crown Plus, VS) and 3 subtractively manufactured materials (a reinforced composite (Brilliant Crios, BC), a polymer‐infiltrated ceramic network (Enamic, VE), and a feldspathic ceramic (Mark II, VM)) were used to fabricate disk‐shaped specimens (Ø10×1‐mm) (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 10). Surface roughness, Vickers microhardness, and color coordinates were measured after polishing, while surface roughness was also measured before polishing. Specimens were then subjected to 25000 cycles of brushing and 10000 cycles of coffee thermal cycling, and measurements were repeated after each time interval. Color difference (ΔE<jats:sub>00</jats:sub>) and relative translucency parameter (RTP) were calculated. Robust analysis of variance test was used to evaluate surface roughness, ΔE<jats:sub>00</jats:sub>, and RTP data, while generalized linear model analysis was used for microhardness data (α = 0.05).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Material type and time interval interaction affected tested parameters (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> ≤ 0.002). In addition, material type affected all parameters (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001) other than surface roughness (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.051), and time interval affected surface roughness and microhardness values (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). Tested materials mostly had their highest surface roughness before polishing (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> ≤ 0.026); however, there was no clear trend regarding the roughness of materials within different time intervals along with ΔE00 and RTP values within materials or time intervals. VS and CT had the lowest microhardness regardless of the time interval, while the remaining materials were listed as VM, VE, and BC in decreasing order (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). Coffee thermal cycling only reduced the microhardness of VM (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Tested additively manufactured resins can be considered more susceptible to simulated brushing and coffee thermal cycling than the other materials, given the fact that their surface roughness and ΔE00 values were higher than previously reported acceptability thresholds and because they had the lowest microhardness after all procedures were complete.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics

• surface
• polymer
• composite
• ceramic
• resin
• size-exclusion chromatography
• collision-induced dissociation
• polishing