Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the staining resistance of CAD/CAM resin-ceramics polished with different techniques and to determine the effectiveness of the polishing techniques on resin-ceramics, comparing it with that of a glazed glass-ceramic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different CAD/CAM ceramics (feldspathic ceramic: C-CEREC Blocs, (SIRONA) and three resin-ceramics: L-Lava Ultimate, (3M ESPE), E-Enamic, (VITA) and CS-CeraSmart, (GC)) and one light cure composite resin: ME-Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (Kuraray) were used. Only C samples were glazed (gl). Other restorations were divided into four groups according to the polishing technique: nonpolished control group (c), a group polished with light cure liquid polish (Biscover LV BISCO) (bb), a group polished with ceramic polishing kit (Diapol, EVE) (cd), and a group polished with composite polishing kit (Clearfil Twist Dia, Kuraray) (kc). Glazed C samples and the polished samples were further divided into four subgroups and immersed into different solutions: distilled water, tea, coffee, and fermented black carrot juice. Eight samples (8 × 8 × 1 mm) were prepared for each subgroup. According to CIELab system, four color measurements were made: before immersion, immersion after 1 day, after 1 week, and after 1 month. Data were analyzed with repeated measures of ANOVA (α=.05). RESULTS: The highest staining resistance was found in gl samples. There was no difference among gl, kc and cd (P>.05). Staining resistance of gl was significantly higher than that of bb (P<.05). Staining resistances of E and CS were significantly higher than those of L and ME (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Ceramic and composite polishing kits can be used for resin ceramics as a counterpart of glazing procedure used for full ceramic materials. Liquid polish has limited indications for resin ceramics.