Stainability of Polished and Glazed Printed Monolithic Zirconia After Coffee Thermocycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective This study assessed the impact of the method of manufacturing, surface treatment, and thickness on the stainability of zirconia after thermocycling. Methods Twenty 0.5 × 10 mm and 20 1 × 10 mm zirconia disks were fabricated using a milling machine. Also, 20 0.5 × 10 mm and 20 1 × 10 mm zirconia disks were fabricated using a 3D printer. After sintering, samples were subjected to one of the two surface treatments ( n = 10). Eight study groups were arranged as (1) 0.5 mm printed–polished, (2) 1 mm printed–polished, (3) 0.5 mm printed–glazed, (4) 1 mm printed–glazed, (5) 0.5 mm milled–polished, (6) 1 mm milled–polished, (7) 0.5 mm milled–glazed, and (8) 1 mm milled–glazed. CIELab values were measured with a spectrophotometer before and after 10,000 thermal cycles in coffee solution. ΔE 00 readings were compared with perceptibility (< 0.8) and acceptability (< 1.8) thresholds. Data were analyzed using three‐way ANOVA and the Games–Howell test ( α = 0.05). Results Although all mean ΔE 00 values were below the acceptability threshold, only 1 mm printed–glazed zirconia and all milled zirconia samples, except for the 0.5 mm polished group, were below the perceptibility threshold. A significant interaction was found between the production method, surface treatment, and thickness ( p = 0.002); 0.5 mm printed zirconia, either polished or glazed, and also 1 mm polished printed zirconia exhibited significantly higher ΔE 00 than their milled counterparts. Moreover, glazing significantly reduced stainability in all zirconia specimens ( p < 0.05). Also, 1 mm milled–polished zirconia had a lower ΔE 00 value than its 0.5 mm counterpart ( p = 0.038). Conclusions Printed zirconia had less color stability than milled zirconia. Glazing provided the lower color change for both milled and printed zirconia. Thicker milled–polished zirconia had a better color stability. Clinical Significance Although the color stainability of printed zirconia was more than milled zirconia, it showed clinically acceptable color change values along with the milled zirconia, regardless of the method of surface treatment and thickness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".