A. Alqahtani, A. AlHelal, A. Alayad, A. Alotaibi, Fahad A. Alfarraj, Omar S. Alosaimi, Ziyad H. Alharbi
{"title":"Assessment of Diamond Rotary Instruments Advertised for Cutting 3Y-TZP Restorations. A Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis","authors":"A. Alqahtani, A. AlHelal, A. Alayad, A. Alotaibi, Fahad A. Alfarraj, Omar S. Alosaimi, Ziyad H. Alharbi","doi":"10.1166/jbt.2023.3274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To examine the cutting efficiency and amount of material removed from crown-cutting diamond burs from a different manufacturer on zirconia using an electric handpiece. Material and Methods: The performance of super coarse diamond bur round-end from five different\n manufacturers that were commercially advertised as zirconium crown cutters were assessed. The five manufacturers and their respective diamond bur models tested were super coarse Group 1: Dimond bur, Group 2: Zirconia Diamond Bur, Round End Cylinder, Meisinger, Group 3: 4ZR Zirconia Cutter\n Diamond Crown Removal Bur, Group 4: Brasseler Dental Diamond Bur, Group 5: Expanded SS White® Lineup of Zirconia Cutting Diamonds. The qualitative assessment of diamond burs (before zirconia cutting) and (after zirconia cutting) was assessed using a scanning electron microscope.\n The mean cutting distance and material removed for each group were calculated and analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Results: The highest cutting efficiency was found in group 2 and the lowest efficiency was observed in group 5. Post-SEM images of rotary zirconia cutting instruments in groups\n (Post G1-G5) demonstrate pullout, wear, chipping, and loss of the diamond grains in general. Conclusion: Zirconia Diamond Bur (G2) was found to be suitable. Whereas, (G5) Expanded SS White® Lineup of Zirconia Cutting Great White®Z Diamonds is less effective.","PeriodicalId":15300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1166/jbt.2023.3274","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To examine the cutting efficiency and amount of material removed from crown-cutting diamond burs from a different manufacturer on zirconia using an electric handpiece. Material and Methods: The performance of super coarse diamond bur round-end from five different
manufacturers that were commercially advertised as zirconium crown cutters were assessed. The five manufacturers and their respective diamond bur models tested were super coarse Group 1: Dimond bur, Group 2: Zirconia Diamond Bur, Round End Cylinder, Meisinger, Group 3: 4ZR Zirconia Cutter
Diamond Crown Removal Bur, Group 4: Brasseler Dental Diamond Bur, Group 5: Expanded SS White® Lineup of Zirconia Cutting Diamonds. The qualitative assessment of diamond burs (before zirconia cutting) and (after zirconia cutting) was assessed using a scanning electron microscope.
The mean cutting distance and material removed for each group were calculated and analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Results: The highest cutting efficiency was found in group 2 and the lowest efficiency was observed in group 5. Post-SEM images of rotary zirconia cutting instruments in groups
(Post G1-G5) demonstrate pullout, wear, chipping, and loss of the diamond grains in general. Conclusion: Zirconia Diamond Bur (G2) was found to be suitable. Whereas, (G5) Expanded SS White® Lineup of Zirconia Cutting Great White®Z Diamonds is less effective.