A Survey on the Current Trends of Different Polishing Protocols for Monolithic Zirconia Restorations amongst Dental Practitioners in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai

Aim: The aim of the survey been conducted was to evaluate the current trends of different polishing protocols for monolithic zirconia restorations amongst dental practitioners in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. Materials and methods: The survey questionnaire consisted of 10 questions aimed toward the current trends of different polishing protocols for monolithic zirconia restorations amongst dental practitioners in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. This questionnaire was validated by a panel of experts and was sent to 450 dental practitioners in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. Results and conclusion: Majority of dental practitioners preferred Porcelain nishing burs to reduce the high point on monolithic zirconia restorations. Laboratory glazing was reported by 48% of dental practitioners, Chairside polishing was preferred by 15% of dental practitioners, 10% preferred chairside polishing followed by laboratory glazing and 26.4% cemented the crown without any polishing protocol. Porcelain polishing kit for carrying out chairside polishing was preferred by majority as against the zirconia polishing kit. The success rate of monolithic zirconia restorations observed by most of the dental practitioners was 5 years. Clinical significance: This survey would bring about the awareness of the various methods used to reduce the high point and polish monolithic zirconia restoration.

[1]  Adel F. Ibraheem,et al.  Effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of full-contour zirconia , 2014 .

[2]  W. Müller,et al.  Surface roughness of zirconia for full-contour crowns after clinically simulated grinding and polishing , 2014, International Journal of Oral Science.

[3]  M. Marques,et al.  The effect of glazed and polished ceramics on human enamel wear. , 2006, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[4]  M. Giannini,et al.  Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. , 2003, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[5]  D F Taylor,et al.  Studies on the wear of porcelain, enamel, and gold. , 1971, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  L. Cooper,et al.  Fracture of layered zirconia restorations at 5 years: A dental laboratory survey , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  M. Wolkewitz,et al.  Shear bond strengths between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics and their susceptibility to thermocycling. , 2008, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[8]  D. Çakır,et al.  The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  S. Koutayas,et al.  Zirconia in dentistry: Part 1. Discovering the nature of an upcoming bioceramic. , 2009, The European journal of esthetic dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Esthetic Dentistry.

[10]  E. Akan,et al.  An overview of monolithic zirconia in dentistry , 2016 .

[11]  L. Cooper,et al.  Fracture rate of monolithic zirconia restorations up to 5 years: A dental laboratory survey. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  Y. Niwano,et al.  Fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia molar crowns with reduced thickness , 2015, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[13]  Taira Kobayashi,et al.  Current status of zirconia restoration. , 2013, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[14]  M. Kern,et al.  Two-body wear of different ceramic materials opposed to zirconia ceramic. , 2010, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  D. Bougeard,et al.  Surface properties of monolithic zirconia after dental adjustment treatments and in vitro wear simulation. , 2015, Journal of dentistry.