Assessment of Diamond Rotary Instruments Advertised for Cutting 3Y-TZP Restorations. A Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于切割3Y-TZP修复的金刚石旋转仪器的评估。扫描电子显微镜分析
目的:用电动手柄检查不同制造商在氧化锆上切割牙冠的金刚石钻头的切割效率和材料去除量。材料和方法:评估了来自五家不同制造商的超粗金刚石钻头圆端的性能,这些制造商在商业上宣传为锆冠刀具。测试的五家制造商及其各自的钻石钻型号分别为超粗第1组:Dimond钻,第2组:氧化锆钻石钻,圆端圆柱,Meisinger,第3组:4ZR氧化锆切割机钻石冠去除钻,第4组:Brasseler牙科钻石钻,第5组:氧化锌切割钻石的膨胀SS White®系列。使用扫描电子显微镜评估金刚石毛刺(氧化锆切割前)和(氧化锆切削后)的定性评估。使用单因素方差分析计算并分析各组的平均切割距离和去除的材料。结果:第2组切割效率最高,第5组切割效率最低。成组旋转氧化锆切割仪器的后SEM图像(后G1-G5)显示了金刚石颗粒的拔出、磨损、碎裂和损失。结论:发现氧化锆-金刚石Bur(G2)是合适的。然而,(G5)膨胀SS White®氧化锆切割Great White®Z钻石系列效果较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
332
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Occupational stress in clinical and non-clinical staff in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS): a cross-sectional study. The Real-Time Detection of Mouse Double Minute-2 mRNA Expression in Living Cells with the Gold Nanoparticle (Journal of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Vol. 8(1), pp. 27–34 (2018)) The Predictive Value of Conventional Ultrasound Signs Plus Serological Indices for Neck Lymph Node Metastasis in Papillary Thyroid Cancer Significant Effect of Ritodrine Hydrochloride Combined with Magnesium Sulfate for Treatment of Patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes Application and Potential of Nanobiomaterials in Bone Regeneration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1