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 (ΔEab > 1.2; ΔE00 > 0.8); moreover, except for Multilayer zirconia with or without glaze, Preshades zirconia exhibited a color change deemed clinically unacceptable (ΔEab > 2.6; ΔE00 > 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.
SilvaLHD, LimaE, MirandaRBP, . Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods. Braz Oral Res, 2017; 31(suppl 1): e58. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0058.
2.
LiuX, YaoX, ZhangR, . Recent advances in glass-ceramics: performance and toughening mechanisms in restorative dentistry. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2024; 112(1): e35334. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.35334.
3.
SouzaR, BarbosaF, AraújoG, . Ultra-thin monolithic zirconia veneers: reality or future? Report of a clinical case and one-year follow-up. Oper Dent, 2018; 43(1): 3–11. DOI: 10.2341/16-350-T.
4.
AungSSMP, TakagakiT, LyannSK, . Effects of alumina-blasting pressure on the bonding to super/ultra-translucent zirconia. Dent Mater, 2019; 35(5): 730–739. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.02.025.
5.
StawarczykB, KeulC, EichbergerM, . Three generations of zirconia: from veneered to monolithic. Part I. Quintessence Int, 2017; 48(5): 369–380. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a38057.
6.
ZiyadTA, Abu-Naba’aLA and AlmohammedSN. Optical properties of CAD-CAM monolithic systems compared: three multilayered zirconia and one lithium disilicate system. Heliyon, 2021; 7(10): e08151. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08151.
7.
BispoLB. Ceramic in dentistry: advantages and limitations of zirconia. Rev Bras Odontol, 2015; 72(1–2): 24-29.
8.
NakamuraT, NakanoY, UsamiH, . Translucency and low-temperature degradation of silica-doped zirconia: A pilot study. Dent Mater J, 2016; 35(4): 571–577. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-274.
9.
de Araújo-JúniorENS, BergamoETP, BastosTMC, . Ultra-translucent zirconia processing and aging effect on microstructural, optical, and mechanical properties. Dent Mater, 2022; 38(4): 587–600. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.02.016.
10.
DedeDÖ, SahinO, ÖzdemirOS, . Influence of the color of composite resin foundation and luting cement on the final color of lithium disilicate ceramic systems. J Prosthet Dent, 2017; 117(1): 138–143. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.016.
11.
HaradaK, RaigrodskiAJ, ChungKH, . A comparative evaluation of the translucency of zirconias and lithium disilicate for monolithic restorations. J Prosthet Dent, 2016; 116(2): 257–263. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.019.
12.
SulaimanTA. Materials in digital dentistry: a review. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2020; 32(2): 171–181. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12566.
13.
MotroPF, KursogluP and KazazogluE.Effects of different surface treatments on stainability of ceramics. J Prosthet Dent, 2012; 108(4): 231–237. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60168-1.
14.
YondemI, AltintasSH and UsumezA.Temperature rise during resin composite polymerization under different ceramic restorations. Eur J Dent, 2011; 5(3): 305–309.
15.
MörmannWH, StawarczykB, EnderA, . Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2013; 20:113–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003.
16.
KilincH and SanalFA. Effect of sintering and aging processes on the mechanical and optical properties of translucent zirconia. J Prosthet Dent, 2021; 126(1): 129.e1–129.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.024.
17.
GhodsiS and JafarianZ.A review on translucent zirconia. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent, 2018; 26(2): 62–74. DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_01759Ghodsi13.
18.
TabatabaianF, AflatoonianK and NamdariM.Effects of veneering porcelain thickness and background shade on the shade match of zirconia-based restorations. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects, 2019; 13(1): 68–74. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2019.011.
19.
ZhangF, InokoshiM, BatukM, . Strength, toughness and aging stability of highly-translucent Y-TZP ceramics for dental restorations. Dent Mater, 2016; 32(12): e327–e337. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.025.
20.
CamposilvanE, LeoneR, GremillardL, . Aging resistance, mechanical properties and translucency of different yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics for monolithic dental crown applications. Dent Mater, 2018; 34(6): 879–890. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.006.
21.
BielertKAT, PaivaGR, LepriCP, . Chromatic changes in ceramic laminates: a literary review on how they occur, and the ways to avoid them. RSBO, 2023; 20(1): 207–216. DOI: 10.21726/rsbo.v20i1.2018.
22.
GarzaLA, ThompsonG, ChoSH, . Effect of toothbrushing on shade and surface roughness of extrinsically stained pressable ceramics. J Prosthet Dent, 2016; 115(4): 489–494. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.013.
23.
YuanJC, BarãoVAR, WeeAG, . Effect of brushing and thermocycling on the shade and surface roughness of CAD-CAM ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent, 2018; 119(6): 1000–1006. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.06.001.
24.
GaleMS and DarvellBW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent, 1999; 27(2): 89–99. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(98)00037-2.
25.
KaramouzosA, PapadopoulosMA, KolokithasG, . Precision of in vivo spectrophotometric colour evaluation of natural teeth. J Oral Rehabil, 2007; 34(8): 613–621. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01744.x.
26.
WillersAE, da SilvaBTF, SirianiLK, . Effect of erosive and abrasive challenges on the glaze layer applied to ceramic materials. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2020; 32(8): 815–822. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12643.
27.
SahadiBO, DominguesBC, Soto-MonteroJ, . Effect of toothbrushing on surface roughness, gloss, and topography of polished and glazed ultra-translucent zirconia. J Prosthodont, 2024; 33(S1): 103–109. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13849.
28.
FúcioSB, CarvalhoFG, SobrinhoLC, . The influence of 30-day-old Streptococcus mutans biofilm on the surface of esthetic restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Dent, 2008; 36(10): 833–839. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.06.002.
29.
BollenCM, LambrechtsP and QuirynenM.Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater, 1997; 13(4): 258–269. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3.
30.
DaryakenariG, AlaghehmandH and BijaniA.Effect of simulated mastication on the surface roughness and wear of machinable ceramics and opposing dental enamel. Oper Dent, 2019; 44(1): 88–95. DOI: 10.2341/17-153-L.
31.
JonesCS, BillingtonRW and PearsonGJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J, 2004; 196(1): 42–45; discussion 31. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881.
32.
HallmannL, UlmerP, WilleS, . Effect of differences in coefficient of thermal expansion of veneer and Y-TZP ceramics on interface phase transformation. J Prosthet Dent, 2014; 112(3): 591–599. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.11.009.
33.
ChenT, GongB and TangC.Origin and evolution of cracks in the glaze surface of a ceramic during the cooling process. Materials (Basel), 2023; 16(16): 5508. DOI: 10.3390/ma16165508.
34.
TomaFR, BîrdeanuMI, UțuID, . Surface characteristics of high translucent multilayered dental zirconia related to aging. Materials (Basel), 2022; 15(10): 3606. DOI: 10.3390/ma15103606.
35.
HamJM, LeeJH, HaSR, . Changes in the flexural strength and surface characteristics of different zones of multilayered translucent zirconia during aging process. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2025; 36(1): 78. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-025-06938-8.
36.
LiS, ZhangX, XiaW, . Effects of surface treatment and shade on the color, translucency, and surface roughness of high-translucency self-glazed zirconia materials. J Prosthet Dent, 2022; 128(2): 217.e1–217.e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.05.014.
37.
SilvaSEGD, SilvaBCDD, CrispimAHT, . Effect of different finishing/polishing techniques and glaze application on the flexural strength of ultra-translucent zirconia after hydrothermal aging. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2025; 164: 106924. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2025.106924.
38.
VardhamanS, BorbaM, KaizerMR, . Wear behavior and microstructural characterization of translucent Multilayer zirconia. Dent Mater, 2020; 36(11): 1407–1417. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.015.
39.
KurtM, BankoğluGüngör M, KarakocaNemli S, . Effects of glazing methods on the optical and surface properties of silicate ceramics. J Prosthodont Res, 2020; 64(2): 202–209. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.005.
40.
LümkemannN and StawarczykB.Impact of hydrothermal aging on the light transmittance and flexural strength of colored yttria-stabilized zirconia materials of different formulations. J Prosthet Dent, 2021; 125(3): 518–526. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.016.
41.
TanoueN, MatsumuraH and AtsutaM.Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent, 2000; 84(1): 93–97. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.107560.
42.
LawsonNC and BurgessJO. Gloss and stain resistance of ceramic–polymer CAD/CAM restorative blocks. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2016; 28Suppl 1: S40–S45. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12166.
43.
Al-ZordkW and SakerS.Impact of sintering procedure and clinical adjustment on color stability and translucency of translucent zirconia. J Prosthet Dent, 2020; 124(6): 788.e1–788.e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.05.024.
44.
VafaeiF, IzadiA, AbbasiS, . Comparison of optical properties of laminate veneers made of zolid FX and katana UTML zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics. Front Dent, 2019; 16(5): 357–368. DOI: 10.18502/fid.v16i5.2284.
45.
CollinsLZ, NaeeniM and PlattenSM. Instant tooth whitening from a silica toothpaste containing blue covarine. J Dent, 2008; 36(Suppl 1): S21–S25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.02.006.
46.
DantasAA, BortolattoJF, RoncolatoÁ, . Can a bleaching toothpaste containing Blue Covarine demonstrate the same bleaching as conventional techniques? An in vitro, randomized and blinded study. J Appl Oral Sci, 2015; 23(6): 609–613. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720150268.
47.
O’BrienWJ, GrohCL and BoenkeKM. A new, small-color-difference equation for dental shades. J Dent Res, 1990; 69(11): 1762–1764. DOI: 10.1177/00220345900690111001.
48.
ParavinaRD, GhineaR, HerreraLJ, . Color difference thresholds in dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2015; 27Suppl 1: S1–S9. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12149.
49.
DouglasRD, SteinhauerTJ and WeeAG. Intraoral determination of the tolerance of dentists for perceptibility and acceptability of shade mismatch. J Prosthet Dent, 2007; 97(4): 200–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2007.02.012.
