Impact of various aging treatments on the microhardness and surface roughness of CAD‐CAM monolithic restorative materials

Abstract

AbstractPurposeDental ceramics deteriorate as a result of thermal aging and exposure to acidic solutions, which change their microhardness and surface roughness. This study assessed the resistance of several computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) restorative dental materials in terms of surface roughness and microhardness following exposure to acidic solutions and thermal aging.Materials and MethodsFive different monolithic CAD‐CAM restorative materials, two leucite‐reinforced glass ceramics (G‐Ceram and CEREC Blocs), a zirconia‐infiltrated lithium silicate (Celtra Duo), a resin nanoceramic (Grandio), and monolithic zirconia (inCoris TZI), were used to create 2‐mm‐thick rectangular specimens (n = 100). After being immersed in either acidic saliva (pH = 4.0) (ST) or gastric juice (pH = 1.2) (GT), each material was subjected to 10,000 cycles of thermal aging. The Vickers microhardness and average surface roughness of the specimens were assessed at baseline, following thermal aging and exposure to either gastric juice or acidic saliva. The surface properties were examined using an atomic force microscope. The Mann‒Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction and the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for statistical analysis (a = 0.05).ResultsThe surface roughness of two leucite‐reinforced glass ceramics (G‐ceram and CEREC) significantly decreased with ST (p = 0.027 and p = 0.044). Only the CEREC was affected when the aging protocols were compared, and the ST group had a significant reduction in roughness (p = 0.009). The microhardness values significantly decreased after both aging protocols in all groups except for the ST subgroup of G‐Ceram. Only inCoris was affected when the aging protocols were compared, and the GT group exhibited a significant reduction in microhardness (p = 0.002).ConclusionThe surface roughness of the tested materials was not affected by the GT. Only leucite ceramics exhibited a decrease in surface roughness in the ST stage. Both aging processes produced a significant decrease in the microhardness of the tested ceramics. Leucite‐reinforced glass‐ceramic materials may be advantageous for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and those with a diet high in acidic foods due to their lower values for changes in microhardness and surface roughness compared to those of other CAD‐CAM materials.