IADR 95th

65/75

-65-initial LiSiPress, LiSiPressvest3203 Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Two Press Ceramic SystemsPoster Presentation11:00 AM–12:15 PM Mar 25, 2017CC, First FloorAuthors:Authors:daizaburomori(Presenter)GC Corp.TATSUYA FUJIMOTO, GC Corp.Go Mashio, GC Corp.Masatoshi Yoshinaga, GC Corp.HayatoYokohara, GC Corp.Tomohiro Hoshino, GC Corp.Takahiro Miyake, GC Corp.TOSHIHIKO AZUMA, GC Corp.TOSHIHIKO AZUMA, GC Corp.Takuya Sato, GC Corp.Tomohiro Kumagai, GC Corp.Abstract: Objectives: A newly developed Lithium silicate press ceramic system, Initial LiSiPress (GC Corp, LP) and LiSiPressVest(GC Corp, LPV) were introduced in 2016. One of the unique feature of this system is not using of Hydrofluoric acid to remove reaction layer after devesting.Thepurpose of this study was to evaluate the difference of the surface roughness between two purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference of the surface roughness between two press ceramic systems.Methods: Two press ceramic systems were examined as shown in the table-1.Acryl disks (diameter 13mm, thickness 2mm) were attached to a ring former with spruesto make the disk shaped ceramic specimens.LP1: The disks (n=10) were invested by LPV and fired (850degC 60min). Then, the LP was heat-pressed and devestedwith a glass blast at 0.4MPa pressure as per the manufacture’s instruction.EMP1: The disks (n=10) were invested by PVS and fired (850degC 60min). Then, the EMP EMP1: The disks (n=10) were invested by PVS and fired (850degC 60min). Then, the EMP was heat-pressed and devestedfollowing LP1’s procedure.EMP2: The disks (n=10) were invested by PVS and fired (850degC 60min). Then, the EMP was heat-pressed, devestedwith a glass blast at 0.4MPa, soaked with 1% hydrofluoric acid and finished with an alumina blast at 0.2MPa pressure as per the manufacture’s instruction. Surface roughness (Ra) of the specimens were measured by VR-3100(Keyence) and analyzed (one-way ANOVA).Results: Ra was 6.1±1.5µm for LP, 19.7±13.5µm for EMP1 and 5.2±2.1µm for EMP2.There were no significant differences between LP1 and EMP1. The Ra for EMP1 was significantly higher than the other two groups due to reaction layer.than the other two groups due to reaction layer.Conclusions: Despite not using hydrofluoric acid and alumina blasting, LP1 showed the same level of surface roughness compared to EMP2.Table(s):Disclosure Statement:Ingots (Shade)InvestmentsInitial LiSi Press (GC Corp)LP (MT A2)LPVIPS e.max Press(Ivoclar Vivadent)e.max (EMP) HT A2Press Vest Speed (PVS)Disclosure Statement:The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: noneI have read the IADR policy on licensing.Signed by daizaburomoriReprinted with permission from the Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 96 (Spec Iss A):-65-abstract number 3203, https://iadr2017.zerista.com/event/member/330687, 2017