PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of conventional cigarette smoking (CS) and recent heated tobacco products (HTPs) on the surface roughness and color stability of different indirect restorative materials.
METHODS: One hundred disc-shaped samples were constructed of three different restorative CAD/CAM materials: lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD; Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), zirconia (BruxZir® Zirconia, Glidewell, USA) and polyetheretherketone (BioHPP® bredent GmbH, Germany). Of the IPS e.max CAD and the Bruxzir samples, 20 samples were glazed, and 20 samples were polished, while the BioHPP samples were all polished according to the manufacturer\'s instructions. Fifty samples were subjected to conventional cigarette smoking (LM, Philip Morris International Inc., Egypt) (Groups: IPS e.max CAD_Glazed exposed to CS (LD_G_Cig), IPS e.max CAD_Polished exposed to CS (LD_P_Cig), Bruxzir_Glazed exposed to CS (Zr_G_Cig), Bruxzir _Polished exposed to CS (Zr_P_Cig) and BioHPP exposed to CS (PEEK_Cig) and fifty samples were exposed to heated tobacco product smoking (Heets, Russet selection, Philip Morris International Inc., Italy) (Groups: IPS e.max CAD_Glazed exposed to HTP (LD_G_HTP), IPS e.max CAD_Polished exposed to HTP (LD_P_HTP), Bruxzir_Glazed exposed to HTP (Zr_G_HTP), Bruxzir CAD_Polished exposed to HTP (Zr_P_HTP) and BioHPP exposed to HTP (PEEK_HTP).. Six hundred cigarettes/heets representing 30 days of medium smoking behavior (20 cigarettes/day) were used. Before and after exposure to smoke, the surface roughness of all the samples was measured using JITAI8101 surface roughness tester (Beijing Jitai Tech Detection Device Co., Ltd, China, and the color parameters were assessed using VITA Easyshade Advance 4.01 (VITA shade, VITA made, VITA). The data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA, paired sample t-test and independent sample t-test. The significance level was set at α < 0.05. The surface topography was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and analyzed using energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy to determine changes in the surface chemical composition.
RESULTS: Both types of smoking caused significant increases in the surface roughness of all the samples. There was a significant difference in color change between CS and HTP for all materials with different surface finish (P < 0.01) and zirconia had the greatest effect on color change (P < 0.001). In contrast, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) \"BioHPP\" had the least effect (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to different types of smoking induce changes in the surface topography and color of different esthetic restorative materials. Compared with HTP, conventional cigarette smoke has a greater effect on the surface roughness and color stability of esthetic restorative materials. The glazed surfaces showed less change in surface topography than did the polished surfaces. Zirconia showed better color stability when compared to polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
METHODS: One hundred disc-shaped samples were constructed of three different restorative CAD/CAM materials: lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD; Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), zirconia (BruxZir® Zirconia, Glidewell, USA) and polyetheretherketone (BioHPP® bredent GmbH, Germany). Of the IPS e.max CAD and the Bruxzir samples, 20 samples were glazed, and 20 samples were polished, while the BioHPP samples were all polished according to the manufacturer\'s instructions. Fifty samples were subjected to conventional cigarette smoking (LM, Philip Morris International Inc., Egypt) (Groups: IPS e.max CAD_Glazed exposed to CS (LD_G_Cig), IPS e.max CAD_Polished exposed to CS (LD_P_Cig), Bruxzir_Glazed exposed to CS (Zr_G_Cig), Bruxzir _Polished exposed to CS (Zr_P_Cig) and BioHPP exposed to CS (PEEK_Cig) and fifty samples were exposed to heated tobacco product smoking (Heets, Russet selection, Philip Morris International Inc., Italy) (Groups: IPS e.max CAD_Glazed exposed to HTP (LD_G_HTP), IPS e.max CAD_Polished exposed to HTP (LD_P_HTP), Bruxzir_Glazed exposed to HTP (Zr_G_HTP), Bruxzir CAD_Polished exposed to HTP (Zr_P_HTP) and BioHPP exposed to HTP (PEEK_HTP).. Six hundred cigarettes/heets representing 30 days of medium smoking behavior (20 cigarettes/day) were used. Before and after exposure to smoke, the surface roughness of all the samples was measured using JITAI8101 surface roughness tester (Beijing Jitai Tech Detection Device Co., Ltd, China, and the color parameters were assessed using VITA Easyshade Advance 4.01 (VITA shade, VITA made, VITA). The data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA, paired sample t-test and independent sample t-test. The significance level was set at α < 0.05. The surface topography was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and analyzed using energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy to determine changes in the surface chemical composition.
RESULTS: Both types of smoking caused significant increases in the surface roughness of all the samples. There was a significant difference in color change between CS and HTP for all materials with different surface finish (P < 0.01) and zirconia had the greatest effect on color change (P < 0.001). In contrast, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) \"BioHPP\" had the least effect (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to different types of smoking induce changes in the surface topography and color of different esthetic restorative materials. Compared with HTP, conventional cigarette smoke has a greater effect on the surface roughness and color stability of esthetic restorative materials. The glazed surfaces showed less change in surface topography than did the polished surfaces. Zirconia showed better color stability when compared to polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
摘要：
目的：确定常规吸烟（CS）和最近加热的烟草产品（HTPs）对不同间接修复材料的表面粗糙度和颜色稳定性的影响。
方法：一百个圆盘形样品由三种不同的修复CAD/CAM材料构成：二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷（IPSe.maxCAD；IvoclarVivadent，列支敦士登),氧化锆(BruxZir®氧化锆,Glidewell,美国)和聚醚醚酮(BioHPP®bredentGmbH，德国)。在IPSe.maxCAD和Bruxzir样品中，20个样品上釉，抛光了20个样品，而BioHPP样品均根据制造商的说明进行抛光。对50个样品进行了常规吸烟(LM，菲利普莫里斯国际公司，埃及）（组：IPSe.maxCAD_Glazed暴露于CS（LD_G_Cig），IPSe.maxCAD_抛光暴露于CS(LD_P_Cig)，Bruxzir_Glazed暴露于CS（Zr_G_Cig），Bruxzir_Polished暴露于CS（Zr_P_Cig）和BioHPP暴露于CS（PEEK_Cig），并将50个样品暴露于加热的烟草产品吸烟（Heets，Russet选择，菲利普莫里斯国际公司，意大利）（组：IPSe.maxCAD_Glazed暴露于HTP（LD_G_HTP），IPSe.maxCAD_抛光暴露于HTP(LD_P_HTP)，Bruxzir_Glazed暴露于HTP（Zr_G_HTP），BruxzirCAD_抛光暴露于HTP(Zr_P_HTP)和BioHPP暴露于HTP(PEEK_HTP)。.使用代表30天中等吸烟行为的600支香烟/片(20支香烟/天)。在暴露于烟雾之前和之后，使用JITAI8101表面粗糙度测试仪测量所有样品的表面粗糙度（北京吉泰科技检测设备有限公司，Ltd,中国,并使用VITAEasyshadeAdvance4.01(VITA阴影，VITAmade,VITA）。数据采用单向方差分析，配对样本t检验和独立样本t检验。显著性水平设定为α<0.05。通过扫描电子显微镜（SEM）评估表面形貌，并使用能量色散X射线（EDX）光谱法进行分析，以确定表面化学组成的变化。
结果：两种类型的吸烟均导致所有样品的表面粗糙度显着增加。对于表面光洁度不同的材料，CS和HTP之间的颜色变化存在显着差异（P<0.01），而氧化锆对颜色变化的影响最大（P<0.001）。相比之下,聚醚醚酮（PEEK）“BioHPP”的作用最小（P<0.001）。
结论：暴露于不同类型的吸烟会导致不同美学修复材料的表面形貌和颜色发生变化。与HTP相比,传统的香烟烟雾对美学修复材料的表面粗糙度和颜色稳定性有较大影响。与抛光表面相比，上釉表面的表面形貌变化较小。与聚醚醚酮(PEEK)相比,氧化锆显示出更好的颜色稳定性。
方法：一百个圆盘形样品由三种不同的修复CAD/CAM材料构成：二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷（IPSe.maxCAD；IvoclarVivadent，列支敦士登),氧化锆(BruxZir®氧化锆,Glidewell,美国)和聚醚醚酮(BioHPP®bredentGmbH，德国)。在IPSe.maxCAD和Bruxzir样品中，20个样品上釉，抛光了20个样品，而BioHPP样品均根据制造商的说明进行抛光。对50个样品进行了常规吸烟(LM，菲利普莫里斯国际公司，埃及）（组：IPSe.maxCAD_Glazed暴露于CS（LD_G_Cig），IPSe.maxCAD_抛光暴露于CS(LD_P_Cig)，Bruxzir_Glazed暴露于CS（Zr_G_Cig），Bruxzir_Polished暴露于CS（Zr_P_Cig）和BioHPP暴露于CS（PEEK_Cig），并将50个样品暴露于加热的烟草产品吸烟（Heets，Russet选择，菲利普莫里斯国际公司，意大利）（组：IPSe.maxCAD_Glazed暴露于HTP（LD_G_HTP），IPSe.maxCAD_抛光暴露于HTP(LD_P_HTP)，Bruxzir_Glazed暴露于HTP（Zr_G_HTP），BruxzirCAD_抛光暴露于HTP(Zr_P_HTP)和BioHPP暴露于HTP(PEEK_HTP)。.使用代表30天中等吸烟行为的600支香烟/片(20支香烟/天)。在暴露于烟雾之前和之后，使用JITAI8101表面粗糙度测试仪测量所有样品的表面粗糙度（北京吉泰科技检测设备有限公司，Ltd,中国,并使用VITAEasyshadeAdvance4.01(VITA阴影，VITAmade,VITA）。数据采用单向方差分析，配对样本t检验和独立样本t检验。显著性水平设定为α<0.05。通过扫描电子显微镜（SEM）评估表面形貌，并使用能量色散X射线（EDX）光谱法进行分析，以确定表面化学组成的变化。
结果：两种类型的吸烟均导致所有样品的表面粗糙度显着增加。对于表面光洁度不同的材料，CS和HTP之间的颜色变化存在显着差异（P<0.01），而氧化锆对颜色变化的影响最大（P<0.001）。相比之下,聚醚醚酮（PEEK）“BioHPP”的作用最小（P<0.001）。
结论：暴露于不同类型的吸烟会导致不同美学修复材料的表面形貌和颜色发生变化。与HTP相比,传统的香烟烟雾对美学修复材料的表面粗糙度和颜色稳定性有较大影响。与抛光表面相比，上釉表面的表面形貌变化较小。与聚醚醚酮(PEEK)相比,氧化锆显示出更好的颜色稳定性。
