Evaluates cutting efficiency in dental reconstruction materials, suggesting optimal bur selections for better outcomes.
Objectives: This study evaluated the cutting efficiency of dental burs with different surface coatings on various reconstruction materials and analyzed the microscopic changes after multiple uses. Methods: Thirty block specimens (N=35, n=7) were prepared from various materials: CAD/CAM PMMA, direct resin composite, lithium disilicate, CAD/CAM nano-hybrid composite, and zirconia (12x4x4 mm³). The specimens were randomly assigned to cut under water cooling with one of seven bur types: Bur 1 (FG 307 CB), Bur 2 (6881.314.016), Bur 3 (FG 307 C), Bur 4 (ZR6881.314.016), Bur 5 (Prototype), Bur 6 (Prototype), and Bur 7 (Prototype). Each bur was used 10 times with a cutting depth of 3 mm. Images were taken of unused, used, and ultrasonically cleaned burs prior to data analysis (α=0.05). Results: Cutting efficiency varied significantly by material and bur type (p⟨0.05). Bur 3 and Bur 5 were most effective for PMMA, while Burs 5, 6, and 7 excelled with direct resin composite. Bur 7 was best for CAD/CAM composite, Bur 3 for lithium disilicate, and Bur 6 for zirconia. Burs 1 and 2 consistently performed poorly. Significance: Bur selection is important for efficient cutting, reducing chair time, material wear, and costs while improving restoration precision and bur longevity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Erlinger et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: