The effect of abrading and cutting instruments on machinability of dental ceramics

Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization Original Research
  • 56 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biomaterials Synthesis and Characterization

Abstract

The aim was to investigate the effect of machining instruments on machinability of dental ceramics. Four dental ceramics, including two zirconia ceramics were machined by three types (SiC, diamond vitrified, and diamond sintered) of wheels with a hand-piece engine and two types (diamond and carbide) of burs with a high-speed air turbine. The machining conditions used were abrading speeds of 10,000 and 15,000 r.p.m. with abrading force of 100 gf for the hand-piece engine, and a pressure of 200 kPa and a cutting force of 80 gf for the air-turbine hand-piece. The machinability efficiency was evaluated by volume losses after machining the ceramics. A high-abrading speed had high-abrading efficiency (high-volume loss) compared to low-abrading speed in all abrading instruments used. The diamond vitrified wheels demonstrated higher volume loss for two zirconia ceramics than those of SiC and diamond sintered wheels. When the high-speed air-turbine instruments were used, the diamond points showed higher volume losses compared to the carbide burs for one ceramic and two zirconia ceramics with high-mechanical properties. The results of this study indicated that the machinability of dental ceramics depends on the mechanical and physical properties of dental ceramics and machining instruments.

The abrading wheels show autogenous action of abrasive grains, in which ground abrasive grains drop out from the binder during abrasion, then the binder follow to wear out, subsequently new abrasive grains come out onto the instrument surface (autogenous action) and increase the grinding amount (volume loss) of grinding materials.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Denry I, Holloway JA. Ceramics for dental applications: a review. Materials. 2010;3:351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sailer I, Philippa, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Hämmerle CH, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the performance of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:4–31. Suppl 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Biaxial flexural strength, elastic moduli, and x-ray diffraction characterization of three pressable all-ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89:374–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98:389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kontonasaki E, Kantiranis N, Papadopoulou L, Chatzistavrou X, Kavouras P, Zorba T, Sivropoulou A, Chrissafis K, Paraskevopoulos KM, Koidis PT. Microstructural characterization and comarative evaluation of physical, mechanical and biological properties of three ceramics for metal-ceramic restrations. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1362–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonzaga CC, Cesar PF, Miranda WG Jr, Yoshimura HN. Slow crack growth and reliability of dental ceramics. Dent Mater. 2011;27:394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Organization for Standardization. ISO 6872: Dental ceramic. Geneva, Switzerland; 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9693: Metal-ceramic dental restorative systems. Geneva, Switzerland; 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Denry IL, Holloway JA. Elastic constants, Vickers hardness, and fracture toughness of fluorrichterite-based glass-ceramics. Dent Mater. 2004;20:213–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kern M, Sasse M, Wolfart S. Ten-year outcome of three-unit fixed dental prostheses made from monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic. J Am Assoc. 2012;143:234–40.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kosmac T, OBlak C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. Strength and reliability of surface treated Y-TZP dental ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53:304–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sax C, Hämmerle CH, Sailer I. 10-year clinical outcomes of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14:183–202.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choi JE, Waddell JN, Torr B, Swain MV. Pressed ceramics onto zirconia. Part 1: comparison of crystalline phases present, adhesion to a zirconia system and flexural strength. Dent Mater. 2011;27:1204–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    White SN, Miklus VG, McLaren EA, Lang LA, Caputo AA. Flexural strength of a layered zironia and porcelain dental all-ceramic system. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94:125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fischer J, Stawarczyk B, Hämmerle CH. Flexural strength of veneering ceramics for zirconia. J Dent. 2008;24:471–5.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Albashaireh ZS, Ghazal M, Kern M. Two-body wear of different ceramic materials opposed to zirconia ceramic. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;104:105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jung YS, Lee JW, Choi YJ, Ahn JS, Shin SW, Huh JB. A study on the in-vitro wear of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain. J Adv Prosthodont. 2010;2:111–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taira M, Wakasa K, Yamaki M, Matsui A. Dental cutting behaviour of mica-based and apatite-based machinable glass-ceramics. J Oral Rehabil. 1990;17:461–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmidt C, Weigl P. Machinability of IPS Empress 2 framework ceramic. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53:348–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Song XF, Ren HT, Yin L. Machinability of lithium disilicate glass ceramic in in vitro dental diamond bur adjusting process. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;53:78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ohkubo C, Watanabe I, Ford JP, Nakajima H, Hosoi T, Okabe T. The machinability of cast titanium and Ti-6Al-4V. Biomaterials. 2000;21:421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Watanabe I, Ohkubo C, Ford JP, Atsuta M, Okabe T. Cutting efficiency of air-turbine burs on cast titanium and dental casting alloys. Dent Mater. 2000;16:420425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ohkubo C, Hosoi T, Ford JP, Watanabe I. Effect of surface reaction layer on grindability of cast titanium alloys. Dent Mater. 2006;22:268–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ban S. Properties of zirconia for realization of all-ceramic restoration. Shikwa Gakuho. 2007;107:670–84.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tang X, Nakamura T, Usami H, Wakabayashi K, Yatani H. Effects of multiple firings on the mechanical properties and microstructure of veneering ceramics for zirconia frameworks. J Dent. 2012;40:372–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anusavice KJ. Phillip’s Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed St. Louis: Elsevier; 2013. P. 239.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Dental and Biomedical Materials ScienceNagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical SciencesNagasakiJapan
  2. 2.Department Perioperative Oral ManagementNagasaki University Hospital, NagasakiNagasakiJapan

Personalised recommendations