Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates surface integrity and color stability in high-translucency zirconia, suggesting implications for dental material longevity.
Objectives: To evaluate the surface roughness and color change of different highly translucent zirconia with or without glaze after toothbrushing simulation and thermocycling. Methods: Forty squared-shaped specimens (3 × 3 mm and 2 mm thick) were milled from two different highly translucent zirconia CAD-CAM blocks ( n = 20): Ceramill Zolid FX Multilayer 71L A1 and Ceramill Zolid HT+ Preshades 71L A1 (AmannGirrbach). Half of the specimens of each zirconia ( n = 10) were stained and glazed (IPS Ivocolor, Ivoclar Vivadent). The surface roughness, confocal microscopy images, and color parameters were obtained at baseline and after aging (48,000 cycles in a toothbrushing simulator followed by 10,000 thermocycles between 5°C and 55°C). The data obtained before and after aging were statistically compared at a significance level of α = 0.05. Results: For both types of zirconia, the surface roughness was found significantly higher for glazed specimens at baseline and after aging ( p < .05); however, the surface roughness of Preshades zirconia significantly decreased after aging for both specimens with (ΔRa: −0.15) or without glaze (ΔRa: −0.13) ( p < .05). Although glazed specimens presented higher lightness after aging, the color change of Preshades specimens was significantly higher than Multilayer specimens ( p < .05). With the exception of glazed Multilayer zirconia, the color change of all specimens was considered clinically perceptible (Δ E ab > 1.2; Δ E 00 > 0.8); moreover, except for Multilayer zirconia with or without glaze, Preshades zirconia exhibited a color change deemed clinically unacceptable (Δ E ab > 2.6; Δ E 00 > 1.8), regardless of the glazing. Conclusion: Both highly translucent zirconia covered by a glaze layer became rougher and showed greater color change after brushing and thermal cycling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Macêdo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: