Cutting efficiency of different dental diamond rotary instruments for sectioning monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns.
Ceramic
Cutting effecincy
Diamond burs
Lithum dislicate
Zirconia
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Sep 2024
27 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
30
06
2024
accepted:
11
09
2024
medline:
28
9
2024
pubmed:
28
9
2024
entrez:
28
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to determine the cutting efficiency of different diamond rotary instrument types for sectioning monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate anatomical crowns. The study used 30 diamond rotary instruments divided into three groups: Zirconia cutting diamond bur (White Z), super coarse grit diamond bur (KBlack), and medium coarse grit diamond bur (KBlue); Two subgroups were assigned based on the crown materials including monolithic zirconia (5YSZ) and lithium disilicate (e.max) ceramics. The cutting efficiency was assessed by measuring the time required to fully section the crowns, followed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) of the dental burs before use and after every sectioned crown. A three-way ANOVA examined the effects of bur type, material type, and sectioning stage. If interaction exists, one-way ANOVA was used to compare the different subgroups, followed by the Tukey post hoc test. The significance level was assigned at α ≤ 0.05. The results exhibited various cutting efficiencies among diamond rotary instruments and ceramic crown materials. White Z demonstrated superior cutting efficiency of zirconia crown compared with KBlack and KBlue for the first cutting cycles (p ≤ 0.05); the results tend to be more comparable at the third cutting cycle. However, the super coarse diamond bur exhibited higher efficiency in cutting lithium disilicate crowns than white Z and KBlue burs through all three cutting cycles(p ≤ 0.05). The diamond bur-cutting efficiency diminished after each use, irrespective of the bur type or the crown material (p ≤ 0.05); this was represented by the reduction of carbon and increased nickel matrix ratio after each bur usage. White Z diamond bur showed higher cutting efficiency of zirconia in the first two cutting cycles; super coarse diamond bur is more efficient for cutting lithium disilicate crown in all of the cutting cycles. The amount of diamond on the burs reduced after each use, with no great impact on the material type when sectioning lithium disilicate and 5YSZ crowns. This study provides valuable insights for dental practitioners in selecting the appropriate diamond rotary instrument for crown sectioning. Practitioners can minimize the risk of damage and reduce the time required for crown removal, improving patient outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to determine the cutting efficiency of different diamond rotary instrument types for sectioning monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate anatomical crowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
The study used 30 diamond rotary instruments divided into three groups: Zirconia cutting diamond bur (White Z), super coarse grit diamond bur (KBlack), and medium coarse grit diamond bur (KBlue); Two subgroups were assigned based on the crown materials including monolithic zirconia (5YSZ) and lithium disilicate (e.max) ceramics. The cutting efficiency was assessed by measuring the time required to fully section the crowns, followed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) of the dental burs before use and after every sectioned crown. A three-way ANOVA examined the effects of bur type, material type, and sectioning stage. If interaction exists, one-way ANOVA was used to compare the different subgroups, followed by the Tukey post hoc test. The significance level was assigned at α ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The results exhibited various cutting efficiencies among diamond rotary instruments and ceramic crown materials. White Z demonstrated superior cutting efficiency of zirconia crown compared with KBlack and KBlue for the first cutting cycles (p ≤ 0.05); the results tend to be more comparable at the third cutting cycle. However, the super coarse diamond bur exhibited higher efficiency in cutting lithium disilicate crowns than white Z and KBlue burs through all three cutting cycles(p ≤ 0.05). The diamond bur-cutting efficiency diminished after each use, irrespective of the bur type or the crown material (p ≤ 0.05); this was represented by the reduction of carbon and increased nickel matrix ratio after each bur usage.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
White Z diamond bur showed higher cutting efficiency of zirconia in the first two cutting cycles; super coarse diamond bur is more efficient for cutting lithium disilicate crown in all of the cutting cycles. The amount of diamond on the burs reduced after each use, with no great impact on the material type when sectioning lithium disilicate and 5YSZ crowns.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides valuable insights for dental practitioners in selecting the appropriate diamond rotary instrument for crown sectioning. Practitioners can minimize the risk of damage and reduce the time required for crown removal, improving patient outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39334035
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04901-7
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-04901-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Zirconium
C6V6S92N3C
lithia disilicate
0
Dental Porcelain
12001-21-7
Diamond
7782-40-3
zirconium oxide
S38N85C5G0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1135Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Hu M-L, Lin H, Zhang Y-D, Han J-M. Comparison of technical, biological, and esthetic parameters of ceramic and metal-ceramic implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(1):26–35. e22.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.07.008
pubmed: 31753461
Giordano IIR. Ceramics overview. Br Dent J. 2022;232(9):658–63.
doi: 10.1038/s41415-022-4242-6
Alqutaibi AY, Ghulam O, Krsoum M, Binmahmoud S, Taher H, Elmalky W, Zafar MS. Revolution of current dental zirconia: a comprehensive review. Molecules. 2022;27(5):1699.
doi: 10.3390/molecules27051699
pubmed: 35268800
pmcid: 8911694
Alqutaibi AY, Alnazzawi AA, Algabri R, Aboalrejal AN, AbdElaziz MH. Clinical performance of single implant-supported ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(3):369–76.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.06.011
pubmed: 32891403
Abdulrahman S, Von See Mahm C, Talabani R, Abdulateef D. Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21:1–8.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01987-1
Margvelashvili-Malament M, Thompson V, Polyakov V, Malament KA. Over 14-year survival of pressed e. max lithium disilicate glass-ceramic complete and partial coverage restorations in patients with severe wear: a prospective clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2024.
Rauch A, Reich S, Dalchau L, Schierz O. Clinical survival of chair-side generated monolithic lithium disilicate crowns: 10-year results. Clin Oral Invest. 2018;22:1763–9.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2271-3
Zarone F, Di Mauro MI, Ausiello P, Ruggiero G, Sorrentino R. Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:1–14.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-019-0838-x
Larsson C, Wennerberg A. The clinical success of zirconia-based crowns: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2014;27(1).
Martakoush-Saleh S, Salgado-Peralvo A-O, Peña-Cardelles J-F, Kewalramani N, Gallucci GO. Evaluating the clinical behavior of veneered zirconia in comparison with monolithic zirconia complete arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2023.
Alghauli MA, Alqutaibi AY, Borzangy S. Clinical benefits of immediate dentin sealing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2024.
Lockard MW. A retrospective study of pulpal response in vital adult teeth prepared for complete coverage restorations at ultrahigh speed using only air coolant. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(5):473–8.
doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.129380
pubmed: 12473995
Ciora E, Miron M, Lungeanu D, Igna A, Jivanescu A. Analysis of the Pulpal Blood Flow Microdynamics during prosthetic tooth Preparation using Diamond burs with different degrees of wear. Dentistry J. 2024;12(6):178.
doi: 10.3390/dj12060178
Ptak DM, Solanki A, Andler L, Shingala J, Tung D, Jain S, Alon E. The Pulpal response to Crown Preparation and Cementation. J Endod. 2023;49(5):462–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2023.02.013
pubmed: 36898663
Won K, Berlin-Broner Y. Factors associated with the need for a primary endodontic treatment after single-unit crown cementation: a retrospective case-control study. J Endod. 2022;48(6):730–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2022.02.001
pubmed: 35181455
Grobecker-Karl T, Christian M, Karl M. Effect of endodontic access cavity preparation on monolithic and ceramic veneered zirconia restorations. Quintessence Int 2016;47(9).
Sharma A, Rahul GR, Poduval ST, Shetty K. Removal of failed crown and bridge. J Clin Experimental Dentistry. 2012;4(3):e167.
doi: 10.4317/jced.50690
Engelberg B. An effective removal system for Zirconia and Lithium-disilicate restorations. Inside Dentistry 2013;9(2).
Parreira FR, O’Connor RP, Hutter JW. Cast prosthesis removal using ultrasonics and a thermoplastic resin adhesive. J Endod. 1994;20(3):141–3.
doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80061-0
pubmed: 7996088
Peters OA, Du D, Ho MY, Chu R, Moule A. Assessing the cutting efficiency of different burs on zirconia substrate. Australian Endodontic J. 2019;45(3):289–97.
doi: 10.1111/aej.12350
Ercoli C, Rotella M, Funkenbusch PD, Russell S, Feng C. In vitro comparison of the cutting efficiency and temperature production of 10 different rotary cutting instruments. Part I: turbine. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;101(4):248–61.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60049-4
pubmed: 19328278
Hunziker S, Thorpe L, Zitzmann NU, Rohr N. Evaluation of diamond rotary instruments marketed for removing zirconia restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2022.
SC S. Assessing the cutting efficiency of dental diamond burs. J Am Dent Assoc. 1996;127(1148):1150.
Siegel SC, von Fraunhofer JA. Cutting efficiency of three diamond bur grit sizes. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131(12):1706–10.
doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0116
pubmed: 11143734
Keeling FL, Taft RM, Haney SJ. Bur Choice when removing Zirconia restorations. J Prosthodont. 2023;32(4):347–52.
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13564
pubmed: 35771711
Peters OA, Du D, Ho MY, Chu R, Moule A. Assessing the cutting efficiency of different burs on zirconia substrate. Aust Endod J. 2019;45(3):289–97.
doi: 10.1111/aej.12350
pubmed: 30983118
Siegel SC, von Fraunhofer JA. The effect of handpiece spray patterns on cutting efficiency. J Am Dent Association. 2002;133(2):184–8.
doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2002.0142
Emir F, Ayyildiz S, Sahin C. What is the changing frequency of diamond burs? J Adv Prosthodont. 2018;10(2):93.
doi: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.93
pubmed: 29713429
pmcid: 5917112
Pilcher ES, Tietge JD, Draughn RA. Comparison of cutting rates among single-patient‐use and multiple‐patient‐use diamond burs. J Prosthodont. 2000;9(2):66–70.
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2000.00066.x
pubmed: 11070132
Gonzaga CC, Spina DRF, de Paiva Bertoli FM, Feres RL, Fernandes ABF, da Cunha LF. Cutting efficiency of different diamond burs after repeated cuts and sterilization cycles in autoclave. Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(6):915–9.
doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_122_18
pubmed: 31939371
Siegel SC, Patel T. Comparison of cutting efficiency with different diamond burs and water flow rates in cutting lithium disilicate glass ceramic. J Am Dent Association. 2016;147(10):792–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.03.006
Aljanobi G, Al-Sowygh ZH. The Effect of Thermocycling on the Translucency and Color Stability of Modified Glass Ceramic and Multilayer Zirconia materials. Cureus. 2020;12(2):e6968.
pubmed: 32190514
pmcid: 7067582
Alraheam IA, Donovan T, Boushell L, Cook R, Ritter AV, Sulaiman TA. Fracture load of two thicknesses of different zirconia types after fatiguing and thermocycling. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(4):635–40.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.012
pubmed: 31383533
Al-Thobity AM, AlOtaibi AM, Alhumaidan AE, Aldossary AA, Siddiqui IA, Helal MA, Alsalman A. Impact of thermocycling on surface roughness, microhardness and optical properties of three different lithium disilicate ceramics. Saudi Dent J. 2022;34(7):589–95.
doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2022.08.004
pubmed: 36267536
pmcid: 9577348
Attia MA, Shokry TE. Effect of dynamic loading on fracture resistance of gradient zirconia fixed partial denture frameworks. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;130(2):242–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.027
pubmed: 34740458
Anunmana C, Charoenchitt M, Asvanund C. Gap comparison between single crown and three-unit bridge zirconia substructures. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014;6(4):253–8.
doi: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.4.253
pubmed: 25177467
pmcid: 4146724
Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater. 2012;28(5):467–77.
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.02.009
pubmed: 22425571
Alqutaibi AY, Alghauli MA, Dewedar K, AbdElaziz MH, Saker S. The influence of Zircos-E
doi: 10.1002/cre2.901
Siegel SC, Patel T. Comparison of cutting efficiency with different diamond burs and water flow rates in cutting lithium disilicate glass ceramic. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(10):792–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.03.006
pubmed: 27346462
Di Cristofaro RG, Giner L, Mayoral JR. Comparative study of the cutting efficiency and working life of carbide burs. J Prosthodont. 2013;22(5):391–6.
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12017
pubmed: 23387508
Ceylan G, Emir F, Doğdu C, Demirel M, Özcan M. Effect of repeated millings on the surface integrity of diamond burs and roughness of different CAD/CAM materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(8):5325–37.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04500-2
pubmed: 35449245
Nakamura K, Katsuda Y, Ankyu S, Harada A, Tenkumo T, Kanno T, Niwano Y, Egusa H, Milleding P, Örtengren U. Cutting efficiency of diamond burs operated with electric high-speed dental handpiece on zirconia. Eur J Oral Sci. 2015;123(5):375–80.
doi: 10.1111/eos.12211
pubmed: 26315542
Pilcher ES, Tietge JD, Draughn RA. Comparison of cutting rates among single-patient-use and multiple-patient-use diamond burs. J Prosthodont. 2000;9(2):66–70.
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2000.00066.x
pubmed: 11070132
Sakoda S, Nakao N, Watanabe I. The effect of abrading and cutting instruments on machinability of dental ceramics. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2018;29(3):34.
doi: 10.1007/s10856-018-6031-y
pubmed: 29549513
Yin L. Property-process relations in simulated clinical abrasive adjusting of dental ceramics. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012;16:55–65.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.07.011
pubmed: 23137622
Gonzaga CC, Falcão Spina DR, de Paiva Bertoli FM, Feres RL, Franco Fernandes AB, da, Cunha LF. Cutting efficiency of different diamond burs after repeated cuts and sterilization cycles in autoclave. Indian J Dent Res 2019, 30(6):915–919.
Bae J-H, Yi J, Kim S, Shim J-S, Lee K-W. Changes in the cutting efficiency of different types of dental diamond rotary instrument with repeated cuts and disinfection. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(1):64–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.002
pubmed: 24231434
Gureckis KM, Burgess JO, Schwartz RS. Cutting effectiveness of diamond instruments subjected to cyclic sterilization methods. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;66(6):721–6.
doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90402-I
pubmed: 1666657