Chairside finishing and polishing of modern dental ceramics: material-specific variations in surface roughness

Aim: This study examines the effects of chairside finishing and polishing on the surface roughness (SR) of zirconia (ZR), lithium disilicate (LD), and hybrid ceramics (HC) to identify material-specific variations and determine optimal clinical protocols for smooth, durable, and esthetic ceramic surfaces.

Methodology: Three modern dental ceramics Zr (IPS e. max® ZirCAD), LD (IPS e. max® CAD), and HC (Vita Enamic®) were used to create 135 disc-shaped specimens. Each specimen (10 mm diameter×2 mm) was either glazed or finished polished following the protocols set for study. A Profilometer evaluated SR of the two surfaces in micrometers (μm), while the surface topography was examined using scanning-electron-microscope (SEM). Using SPSS, ANOVA and post hoc multi-comparison tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results: One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences among groups (p < 0.05). For Zr, the glazed specimens exhibited the highest SR (p = 0.000), while OptraFine® and Diasynt® produced smoother surfaces with no significant difference between them (p = 0.226). In the LD group, Diasynt® showed significantly higher roughness compared with both OptraFine® and glazed specimens (p = 0.000), whereas OptraFine® and glazed groups did not differ significantly (p = 0.060). For HC, Diasynt® produced the highest roughness, followed by glazing, with OptraFine® yielding the smoothest surfaces. Overall, OptraFine® consistently yielded the lowest surface roughness across all materials, with LD exhibiting the smoothest surfaces (0.119 ± 0.031 µm).

Conclusion: SR of CAD/CAM ceramics was influenced by both material type and finishing method. OptraFine® consistently produced the smoothest surfaces. LD was the smoothest material, and ZR benefited more from polishing than glazing. Material-specific finishing is essential for optimal smoothness, esthetics, and durability.

Introduction

The quest for aesthetically beautiful and functionally robust dental restorations has fueled the widespread use of modern dental ceramics in restorative dentistry. Materials like zirconia (ZR), lithium disilicate (LD), and hybrid ceramics (HC) have significant advantages, including high strength, excellent biocompatibility, and superior optical qualities (Pereira et al., 2023; Amaya-Pajares et al., 2016). Despite these advantages, clinical treatments typically necessitate intraoral changes like as trimming, contouring, or marginal adaptation, which always affect the surface of the restorations (Zarone et al., 2019; Irusa et al., 2022). The literature presents conflicting evidence regarding the most effective method for achieving the smoothest surface on indirect restorations. Some studies suggest that glazing produces a superior finish, while others report no substantial difference between glazing and mechanical polishing. Conversely, multiple investigations have shown that mechanical polishing can outperform glazing in reducing surface roughness (Sampaio-Fernandes et al., 2022; Albani et al., 2024). Ideally, the prosthetic surface should be glazed and/or polished, before final cementation of the indirect restoration. However, because glazing/reglazing is carried out in a laboratory, it needs many sessions. Thus, chair-side polishing is faster and easier. Furthermore, certain patients may require frequent intraoral finishing and polishing in the event of excess cement removal, prosthesis fracture, and/or orthodontic bracket removal (Irusa et al., 2022; Sampaio-Fernandes et al., 2022; Albani et al., 2024).

Surface roughness (Ra) is an important consideration in the long-term success of ceramic restorations. Roughened surfaces can lead to increased plaque formation, discoloration, faster wear of opposing dentition, and worse esthetic results. During chairside adjustments of indirect restorations, the ceramic surface may become roughened. As a result, chairside finishing and polishing treatments are widely used to restore smoothness and improve the clinical performance of ceramic restorations. However, the efficiency of these methods is heavily influenced by both the material’s microstructure and the finishing methodology utilized (Rashid, 2014).

ZR is a polycrystalline ceramic that lacks a glassy phase, which has a substantial impact on its surface behavior when polished or glazed. ZR’s lack of a glass matrix makes it very wear resistant, but it also restricts its ability to be evenly polished using standard finishing procedures (Kulvarangkun et al., 2022). In contrast, LD and HC have significant glassy components within their microstructure, allowing for more uniform surface adaption during finishing and polishing. These microstructure variances have an impact on qualities like as gloss retention, plaque buildup, and antagonist tooth wear, in addition to the desired surface smoothness (Schneider et al., 2013; Carek et al., 2022). Given these inherent material properties, it is critical to study material-specific differences in Ra after chairside finishing and polishing (Sarıcı and Dayı, 2025; Wright et al., 2004).

Understanding material-specific variations in Ra following chairside finishing and polishing is essential for optimizing the longevity, esthetics, and functional performance of ceramic restorations. Choosing the appropriate finishing protocol for each type of ceramic can help minimize plaque accumulation, reduce wear on opposing dentition, and enhance overall patient satisfaction, thereby improving the clinical success of contemporary restorative procedures. In addition, these distinctions can help clinicians pick the best finishing techniques for each ceramic type, thus improving the overall therapeutic results. Accordingly, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of different chairside finishing and polishing protocols on the Ra of ZR, LD, and HC. By examining these material-specific differences, the results are expected to provide evidence-based guidance for selecting and optimizing finishing procedures for modern dental ceramics in clinical practice.

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

This in vitro experimental study was carried out at the College of Dentistry Research Center (CDRC), College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the CDRC (Approval No. FR 0741).

Specimen Preparation

A total of 135 disc-shaped specimens were fabricated from three types of contemporary dental ceramics: ZR (IPS e. max® ZirCAD), LD (IPS e. max® CAD), and HC (Vita Enamic®) (n = 45 each). The details of the test materials used in the study are presented in Table 1. All specimens were standardized and verified with a digital caliper to dimensions of 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness to ensure uniformity. CAD/CAM milling procedures were employed for specimen fabrication using pre-sintered or partially crystallized blocks provided by the respective manufacturers.

Table 1

Table 1. Composition and characteristics of the dental materials evaluated in this study.

Following milling, ZR specimens were subjected to a final sintering cycle in a high-temperature furnace according to the manufacturer’s protocol to achieve full densification. LD specimens underwent a crystallization firing process in a porcelain furnace to develop their final crystalline structure and mechanical strength. In contrast, HC specimens, composed of a dual-network structure consisting of approximately 86 wt% feldspathic ceramic infiltrated with 14 wt% polymer, did not require any sintering or crystallization. These blocks were already polymer-infiltrated and cured during industrial manufacturing.

Prior to experimental procedures, all specimens were ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water for 10 min to remove surface debris and contaminants, and then air-dried.

Simulated clinical adjustment

To replicate the clinical scenario in which ceramic restorations require intraoral adjustment before polishing, all specimens underwent a standardized simulated adjustment procedure prior to allocation into the finishing and polishing groups. A fine-grit diamond bur (Magic Touch Line HP for Zirconia, Lithium Disilicate, and E-Max®, Strauss Diamond Instruments, United States) mounted on a slow-speed handpiece (Kavo EXPERTmatic Lux E25L, Kavo, Germany) was used to create controlled surface irregularities under standardized conditions: 20,000 rpm, light and consistent pressure, a 10-s adjustment time per specimen, and a continuous unidirectional sweeping motion across the entire surface, with water cooling to minimize heat generation. All adjustments were performed by the same experienced operator, and the bur was replaced after every 10 specimens to maintain uniform cutting efficiency. This protocol ensured a consistent degree of surface roughening across all samples, closely mimicking the chairside occlusal or marginal adjustments commonly performed prior to ceramic polishing.

Grouping of specimens

The specimens were randomly divided into three main groups (n = 45 per material type). Each ceramic group was then subdivided into three subgroups (n = 15 per subgroup) as per the surface finishing procedures as follows:

• Finishing and Polishing with OptraFine®.

• Finishing and Polishing with DIASYNT®.

• Glazing in a Furnace.

Surface Preparation of the specimens

Experimental group OptraFine®

Specimens allocated to this group were finished and polished using the OptraFine® ceramic polishing system, specifically designed for dental ceramics. The protocol followed the manufacturer’s recommendations and was performed with a low-speed handpiece (≤12,000 rpm) (Kavo EXPERTmatic Lux E25L Contra Angle Handpiece, Kavo, Bismarckring 39, 88400 Biberach, Germany) under standardized operator conditions.

The OptraFine® sequence consisted of three polishing steps:

1. Finishing (OptraFine-F, Gray): Surface irregularities created during simulated adjustments were removed. Each specimen surface was finished for 30 s at 6,000–10,000 rpm with light, intermittent pressure to prevent heat buildup.

2. Pre-polishing (OptraFine-P, Green): The ceramic surfaces were further smoothened. Each surface was polished for 30 s at 6,000–10,000 rpm, using minimal pressure and intermittent strokes.

3. High-gloss polishing (OptraFine HP, Pink with polishing paste): A thin layer of polishing paste was applied, and polishing was carried out for 30 s at 4,000–6,000 rpm using a felt wheel.

All procedures were performed by the same operator to minimize variability. Air cooling was applied intermittently to reduce the risk of heat-induced surface alterations. The total polishing time per specimen was standardized at approximately 90 s (30 s per step).

Experimental group DIASYNT®

Specimens allocated to this group were finished and polished using the DIASYNT® Plus diamond-impregnated dental ceramic polishing system, designed for chairside adjustments of high-strength dental ceramics. The protocol followed the manufacturer’s instructions and was performed using a low-speed handpiece (≤12,000 rpm) (Kavo EXPERTmatic Lux E25L Contra Angle Handpiece, Kavo, Bismarckring 39, 88400 Biberach, Germany) under standardized operator conditions.

The DIASYNT® Plus system consisted of a two-step diamond polisher sequence:

1. Finishing (DIASYNT® Plus, Coarse-Grit): Surface irregularities introduced during simulated adjustments were reduced using diamond-impregnated silicone polishers. Each specimen was finished for 30 s at 8,000–10,000 rpm under light, intermittent pressure to prevent overheating and surface damage.

2. Polishing (DIASYNT® Plus, Fine-Grit): The ceramic surfaces were further smoothened and polished to achieve a uniform, glossy surface. Each specimen was polished for 30 s at 6,000–8,000 rpm with minimal pressure and continuous movement to ensure consistent finishing.

All finishing and polishing steps were carried out by the same operator to minimize technique variability. Intermittent air cooling was used to avoid heat accumulation on the ceramic surface. The total polishing time per specimen was standardized at approximately 60 s (30 s per step).

The glazing process

Every ceramic specimen was put through a uniform glazing procedure in accordance with the guidelines provided by the manufacturer. Following the prescribed temperature and holding time for each material, the produced specimens were put in a ceramic furnace (Esgaia, J. Morita Mfg Corp, Kyoto, Japan) and glazed. This process replicated the ultimate clinical state of glazed ceramic restorations by guaranteeing the development of a homogeneous, smooth surface layer.

Surface roughness (Ra) measurement

The Ra of each specimen was evaluated using a three-dimensional non-contact optical profilometer (Contour-GT-X®, Bruker Nano Surfaces Division, San Jose, CA, United States). The average Ra in micrometers (µm) was calculated by scanning three randomly selected areas on the polished or control surface of each specimen. To maintain consistency, the scanning area was standardized at 500 × 500 µm for all measurements. The mean of the three readings was calculated and recorded as the representative Ra value for each specimen. This method minimized measurement bias and enhanced the reproducibility of the results.

Statistical analysis

The data were entered into SPSS software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States) for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, including the mean and standard deviation, were calculated for each subgroup. Differences in Ra values among ceramic materials and polishing protocols were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). When statistically significant differences were detected, post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey’s HSD test to determine intergroup variations. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The results of this study demonstrated distinct material-specific variations in Ra following chairside finishing-polishing procedures, using two different types of finishing-polishing systems (OptraFine®, DIASYNT®), and glazing among the three tested ceramics Zr, LD and HC. Mean Ra values varied significantly between materials and treatment protocols, indicating that the response to finishing-polishing was not only dependent on the type of the finishing-polishing system utilized but also on the ceramic composition and microstructure. Comparative analysis revealed differences in the reduction of surface irregularities across groups, highlighting the influence of material type and polishing system on achieving clinically acceptable smoothness.

Statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA showed significant differences (p < 0.05) among the groups after chairside finishing and polishing, followed by post hoc pairwise comparisons to determine intergroup variations. The findings are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1, which summarizes the mean Ra values in micrometers (μm) and standard deviations for each ceramic type under different finishing-polishing protocols. For ZR, ANOVA revealed significant differences among the finishing methods (p = 0.000). Tukey’s post hoc test (Table 3) showed that the ZR glazed group (0.637 ± 0.301) exhibited significantly higher Ra compared with both OptraFine® and Diasynt® (p = 0.000). However, the difference between OptraFine® and Diasynt® was not statistically significant (p = 0.226). The rougher surface of the glazed ZR was also evident in the SEM images recorded at ×500 magnification as presented in Figure 2.

Table 2

Table 2. Mean surface roughness by material and finishing method.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Graphical comparisons of the mean Surface Roughness (Ra) in micrometers (µm) of Zirconia, Lithium Disilicate, and Hybrid Ceramics After Different Finishing Protocols.

Table 3

Table 3. Tukey HSD post hoc multiple comparisons of surface roughness among finishing methods for different ceramics.

Figure 2

Figure 2. SEM images on glazed and two types of polished surfaces of the test materials used in this study. (a) ZirCAD® 500X (Glazed); (b) ZirCAD® 500X (Optrafine®); (c) ZirCAD® 500X (Diasynt®); (d) Emax CAD® 500X (Glazed); (e) Emax CAD® 500X (Optrafine®); (f) Emax CAD® 500X (Diasynt®); (g) Vita Enamic® 500X (Glazed); (h) Vita Enamic® 500X (Optrafine®); (i) Vita Enamic® 500X (Diasynt®).

For LD group (Table 2), significant differences were also observed (p = 0.000). Pairwise comparisons (Table 3) revealed that Diasynt® produced significantly higher Ra than OptraFine® (p = 0.000) and the glazed group (p = 0.000). The difference between OptraFine® and glazed specimens was not significant (p = 0.060). For HC group, ANOVA results (Table 2) confirmed significant differences among finishing groups (p = 0.000). Tukey’s test (Table 3) showed that Diasynt® produced significantly higher Ra than OptraFine® (p = 0.000 each) however with glazed specimens it produced non-significant differences (p = 0.293). Additionally, the OptraFine® group showed significantly higher roughness than the glazed group (p = 0.000). The glazed LD group exhibited the lowest Ra values, which corresponded well with the SEM observations at ×500 magnification, as shown in Figure 2d, confirming its smooth and uniform surface texture.

To relate these within-material observations to a wider assessment of the finishing approaches, The Ra values obtained following each finishing and polishing process are shown in Table 4 and Figure 3. The results indicate that the choice of surface finishing method significantly affected the roughness of all tested ceramic materials. Among the evaluated systems, glazed and Diasynt® produced higher roughness values, while OptraFine® system yielded the smoothest surfaces overall. Interestingly, for ZR specimens, the OptraFine® system achieved surface smoothness comparable to that of the glazed group for ZR specimens.

Table 4

Table 4. Comparison of surface roughness across ceramic materials within each finishing system.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Graphical representation of the Surface Roughness for Different Ceramics Across Finishing Systems.

When the finishing-polishing systems were compared across the different ceramic materials (Table 5), statistically significant differences were found among all groups (ANOVA, p = 0.000). Within the OptraFine® system, LD exhibited the lowest surface roughness (0.119 ± 0.031 µm), which was significantly smoother than ZR (p = 0.000) and HC (p = 0.000), while no significant difference was observed between ZR and HC (p = 0.961). For the Diasynt® system, LD again showed the lowest roughness (0.192 ± 0.025 µm), followed by ZR (0.291 ± 0.082 µm) and HC (0.379 ± 0.051 µm), with pairwise comparisons confirming significant differences among all three materials (p = 0.000). In the glazed groups, ZR demonstrated the highest Ra (0.637 ± 0.302 µm) which was statistically significant (p < 0.05) as compared with LD (0.086 ± 0.054 µm) and HC (0.404 ± 0.055 µm).

Table 5

Table 5. Comparative evaluation of surface roughness among ceramics for each finishing protocol by tukey HSD.

Overall, these findings indicate that Ra is strongly influenced by the interaction between material type and finishing system. OptraFine® produced consistently low values across all ceramics, though LD was significantly smoother. Diasynt® yielded the highest roughness, particularly on HC, while glazing was effective for LD but resulted in markedly rougher Ra surfaces.

Discussion

A three-dimensional (3D) non-contact profilometer was employed to determine the Ra values, expressed in micrometers (μm), for both the polished and glazed surfaces of three commonly used indirect CAD/CAM restorative materials. Uniformly shaped and dimensioned test specimens were used as reference samples in this in vitro study. Furthermore, the surface topography of the glazed and polished specimens was examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Several researchers have recommended the use of 3D non-contact profilometry for evaluating the Ra parameter, as it provides high-resolution and reliable surface characterization (Ersahan and Alakus Sabuncuoglu, 2016). In quantitative surface topography analysis, the 3D non-contact optical profilometer interference microscope has demonstrated superior reliability and efficiency. It is equipped with an integrated camera that records a three-dimensional surface texture image of the entire specimen, allowing for precise qualitative visualization of the surface features (Zhang et al., 2022). The Ra parameter provides a practical and interpretable measure that facilitates comparison among different materials and enables correlation with findings from other studies and established standards, making it a valuable reference for overall surface characterization (Persson, 2023).

This study rejected the null hypothesis that Ra would be comparable between glazed and polished surfaces, instead revealing significant material-dependent variations between the tested CAD/CAM dental restorative materials. One major advantage of CAD/CAM blocks is their industrial fabrication process, which ensures consistency and minimizes the risk of processing errors. Each of the tested materials possesses unique physical, structural, and aesthetic properties (Gracis et al., 2015). Manufacturers claim enhanced performance for their respective materials, and numerous studies have investigated and reported on their individual characteristics. This study aimed to assess and compare the surface characteristics of different materials by analyzing both their glazed and finished/polished surfaces. Ideally, these materials should exhibit similar surface properties (Akar et al., 2014); however, statistical analysis indicated significant variations in Ra between the glazed and polished specimens. Consequently, the null hypothesis, that the Ra values of the glazed and finished/polished surfaces of the three tested indirect CAD/CAM restorative materials would be comparable and remain unaffected was rejected.

Previous studies have reported that the Ra of glazed ceramics typically falls within the range of 0.2–0.5 μm (Rani et al., 2021). Variations in Ra outcomes among different studies can be attributed to several factors, including differences in ceramic composition, polishing systems, operator proficiency, human variability, and profilometer calibration settings (Aydın et al., 2021). A Ra value of approximately 0.5 μm is generally considered clinically acceptable for ceramic restorations (Rani et al., 2021; Aydın et al., 2021). In the present study, the glazed specimens exhibited Ra values between 0.08 μm and 0.63 μm, while the finishing specimens from Optrafine ranged from 0.11 μm to 0.18 μm and the finishing with the Diasynt ranged from 0.19 μm to 0.37 μm. All tested materials demonstrated SR values that remained within clinically acceptable limits, irrespective of the surface treatment applied. The glazed zirconia surface was the only exception, exhibiting a Ra value of 0.63 μm approximately 0.13 μm above the clinically acceptable threshold according to comparison with previously cited literature. Because surface roughness values beyond the recognized threshold have been associated with higher plaque deposition, rapid antagonist wear, and decreased long-term restorative efficacy, this study has clinical significance (Rashid, 2014). The higher Ra found for glazed zirconia indicates that glazing might not be enough to produce a sufficiently smooth surface for this material and supports a material-specific reaction to finishing methods. Because to zirconia’s polycrystalline structure and lack of a glassy phase, the glaze’s ability to vitrify evenly is limited, which may increase rather than decrease surface discrepancies (Manziuc et al., 2019). Chairside polishing seems to be a more reliable and efficient method for creating smoother zirconia surfaces and this is in line with earlier findings demonstrating that superior polishing processes can produce Ra values with better long-term stability for zirconia (Kheur et al., 2022). Collectively, these observations underscore the need to reconsider glazing as the default finishing method for zirconia restorations. Previous studies have consistently reported variations in Ra outcomes between glazing and chairside polishing techniques across different restorative materials (Rashid, 2014; Rani et al., 2021). The literature presents mixed findings regarding which approach yields superior surface quality. Wright et al. (Manziuc et al., 2019) reported that chairside polishing can achieve results comparable to or even superior to glazing, whereas other studies have found glazing to produce smoother surfaces than chairside polishing (Chu et al., 2000; Schuh et al., 2005).

The results of this investigation demonstrate how finishing and polishing techniques have a very material-dependent impact on Ra. Interestingly, under glazing, ZR reacted differently than HC and LD. Glazing resulted in noticeably rougher ZR surfaces, whereas it generated the smoothest surfaces for LD and HC. Because ZR is a polycrystalline ceramic without a glassy phase, it is unable to undergo uniform glass fusion and smooth surface development during glazing. This is explained by the inherent variances in microstructure. On the other hand, glass-containing ceramics, such HC and LD, enable improved glaze layer dispersion, resulting in smoother surfaces. On the other hand, OptraFine® mechanical polishing consistently produced minimal roughness in all materials, highlighting its dependability as a chairside finishing method. Diasynt®'s greater roughness values, particularly in HC, indicate less successful adaptation to a variety of ceramic microstructures, which results in less than ideal smoothness. Together, these findings highlight the need to customize the finishing system selection to the ceramic material in order to maximize clinical results. The present findings align with previous research demonstrating that glazing exhibits limited efficacy in enhancing the surface characteristics of ZR, while producing more favorable results in glass-based ceramic materials (Jamali et al., 2024).

The current findings emphasize the need of choosing material-specific finishing techniques for the best surface results from a therapeutic perspective. In comparison to glazing, chairside polishing using the OptraFine® equipment showed improved smoothness for ZR, which may lessen antagonist wear and plaque buildup. For LD and HC, on the other hand, both glazing and polishing resulted in therapeutically acceptable surfaces; nonetheless, polishing is still a reliable and repeatable substitute in situations when reglazing is not feasible. Clinicians should choose finishing techniques that strike a compromise between effectiveness, surface integrity, and long-term durability in light of the constraints related to chairside adjustments. Interestingly, OptraFine® continuously produced low Ra values for all materials, with LD exhibiting very smooth surfaces. These results imply that, regardless of the kind of ceramic, sophisticated polishing systems with fine diamond-impregnated tools may produce dependable finishing results. Because chairside polishing minimizes chairside time and removes the possibility of structural degradation from multiple firing cycles, our results support clinical suggestions that chairside polishing is a feasible alternative to reglazing, especially when intraoral repairs are necessary (Kurt et al., 2020). These results are in line with other studies that shown that polishing system efficacy varies depending on the substrate, highlighting the necessity of choosing a system according to the particular ceramic composition (Gong et al., 2024).

There were a few limitations on this study. It is possible that variations in each material’s production and fabrication processes have affected its surface characteristics. Furthermore, only two methods of polishing and finishing were assessed. Because it was an in vitro study, variables including natural manufacturing flaws and differences in how the specimen was handled during glazing, polishing, and finishing might have affected the outcome.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this in vitro investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• The ceramic composition and the chosen polishing or finishing method significantly influenced the surface roughness of modern CAD/CAM ceramics.

• For zirconia, glazing alone should not be relied upon to achieve a clinically acceptable surface. Chairside polishing particularly with a multi-step system such as OptraFine® is recommended, as it consistently produced smoother surfaces than glazing.

• For lithium disilicate, both glazing and OptraFine® polishing achieved excellent and clinically comparable levels of smoothness, indicating that either technique can be effectively used in practice.

• For hybrid ceramics, glazing and OptraFine® polishing resulted in acceptable surface quality; however, the Diasynt® system should be used with caution, as it produced the highest roughness values for this material.

Overall, these findings underscore the importance of employing material-specific finishing protocols to achieve optimal surface smoothness, enhance esthetics, and promote long-term clinical durability of ceramic restorations.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

MA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. AB: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing. HA: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing. RA: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing. SH: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – review and editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The research was funded by Ongoing Research Funding Program (ORF-2025-950), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the support from Ongoing Research Funding Program (ORF-2025-950), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Akar, G. C., Pekkan, G., Çal, E., Eskitaşçıoğlu, G., and Özcan, M. (2014). Effects of surface-finishing protocols on the roughness, color change, and translucency of different ceramic systems. J. Prosthetic Dentistry 112 (2), 314–321. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.033

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Albani, R., Habib, S. R., AlQahtani, A., AlHelal, A. A., Alrabiah, M., and Anwar, S. (2024). The surface roughness of contemporary indirect CAD/CAM restorative materials that are glazed and chair-side-finished/polished. Materials 17 (5), 997. doi:10.3390/ma17050997

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amaya-Pajares, S. P., Ritter, A. V., Vera-Resendiz, C., Henson, B. R., and Donovan, T. E. (2016). Effect of finishing and polishing on the surface roughness of four ceramic materials after occlusal adjustment. J. Esthetic Restor. Dent. 28 (4), 227–233. doi:10.1111/jerd.12222

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aydın, N., Topçu, F. T., Karaoğlanoğlu, S., Oktay, E. A., and Erdemir, U. (2021). Effect of finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness and color change of composite resins. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 13 (5), e446–e454. doi:10.4317/jced.58011

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carek, A., Slokar Benić, L., Komar, D., and Krebelj, E. (2022). Roughness of the surface of zirconia reinforced lithium disilicate ceramic treated by different procedures. Mater. Basel, Switz. 16 (1), 265. doi:10.3390/ma16010265

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chu, F. C., Frankel, N., and Smales, R. J. (2000). Surface roughness and flexural strength of self-glazed, polished, and reglazed In-Ceram/Vitadur alpha porcelain laminates. Int. J. Prosthodont. 13, 66–71. Available online at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11203612/.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Ersahan, S., and Alakus Sabuncuoglu, F. (2016). Effect of surface treatment on enamel surface roughness. J. Istanb Univ. Fac. Dent. 50 (1), 1–8. doi:10.17096/jiufd.02142

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gong, J., Huang, X., and Yuan, S. (2024). Comparative study on the effects of different polishing methods on tooth surface microstructure and roughness following initial periodontal treatment. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 10 (1), e851. doi:10.1002/cre2.851

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gracis, S., Thompson, V. P., Ferencz, J. L., Silva, N. R., and Bonfante, E. A. (2015). A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int. J. Prosthodont. 28 (3), 227–235. doi:10.11607/ijp.4244

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Irusa, K. F., Albouny, J.-P., Cook, R., Amaya-Pajares, S., and Donovan, T. (2022). The effect of finishing and polishing with proprietary vs. interchanged polishing kits on the surface roughness of different ceramic materials. J. Prosthodont. 32 (3), 267–272. doi:10.1111/jopr.13417

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jamali, M., Ezoji, F., Esmaeili, B., and Khafri, S. (2024). Comparative effects of glazing versus polishing on mechanical, optical, and surface properties of zirconia ceramics with different translucencies. Clin. Experimental Dental Research 10 (3), e884. doi:10.1002/cre2.884

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kheur, M., Lakha, T., Shaikh, S., Kheur, S., Qamri, B., Zhen, L. W., et al. (2022). A comparative study on simulated chairside grinding and polishing of monolithic zirconia. Mater. (Basel) 15 (6), 2202. doi:10.3390/ma15062202

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kulvarangkun, A., Panyayong, W., and Pumpaluk, P. (2022). Experimental study of surface roughness of dental ceramics after polishing with three types of polishing systems. J. Int. Soc. Prev. & Community Dent. 12 (5), 540–546. doi:10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_289_22

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kurt, M., Bankoğlu Güngör, M., Karakoca Nemli, S., and Turhan Bal, B. (2020). Effects of glazing methods on the optical and surface properties of silicate ceramics. J. Prosthodontic Research 64 (2), 202–209. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Manziuc, M. M., Gasparik, C., Burde, A. V., Colosi, H. A., Negucioiu, M., and Dudea, D. (2019). Effect of glazing on translucency, color, and surface roughness of monolithic zirconia materials. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 31 (5), 478–485. doi:10.1111/jerd.12493

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pereira, R. M., Ribas, R. G., Montanheiro, TLDA, Schatkoski, V. M., Rodrigues, K. F., Kito, L. T., et al. (2023). An engineering perspective of ceramics applied in dental reconstructions. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 31, e20220421. doi:10.1590/1678-7757-2022-0421

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Persson, B. N. J. (2023). On the use of surface roughness parameters. Tribol. Lett. 71, 29. doi:10.1007/s11249-023-01700-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rani, V., Mittal, S., and Sukhija, U. (2021). An in vitro evaluation to compare the surface roughness of glazed, reglazed and chair side polished surfaces of dental porcelain. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 12 (2), 164–168. doi:10.4103/ccd.ccd_86_20

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rashid, H. (2014). The effect of surface roughness on ceramics used in dentistry: a review of literature. Eur. J. Dent. 8 (4), 571–579. doi:10.4103/1305-7456.143646

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sampaio-Fernandes, M., Fernandes, E., and Pereira, S. (2022). Effectiveness of ceramics chair-side polishing – 2D and 3D evaluation. Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia. Med. Dentária Cir. Maxilofac. 63 (3), 126–133. doi:10.24873/j.rpemd.2022.10.879

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarıcı, T., and Dayı, B. (2025). Evaluation of the effects of different polishing systems on surface roughness and surface discoloration of various restorative materials. BMC Oral Health 25, 978. doi:10.1186/s12903-025-06335-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schneider, J., Frota, B. M. D., Passos, V. F., Santiag o, S. L., and Pontes, K. M. F. (2013). Effects of two polishing techniques and reglazing on the surface roughness of dental porcelain. J. Prosthodont. 22 (6), 457–461. doi:10.1111/jopr.12055

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schuh, C., Kinast, E. J., Mezzomo, E., and Kapczinski, M. P. (2005). Effect of glazed and polished surface finishes on the friction coefficient of two low-fusing ceramics. J. Prosthet. Dent. 93, 245–252. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.12.010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wright, M. D., Masri, R., Driscoll, C. F., Romberg, E., Thompson, G. A., and Runyan, D. A. (2004). Comparison of three systems for the polishing of an ultra-low fusing dental porcelain. J. Prosthet. Dent. 92, 486–490. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.07.021

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zarone, F., Ferrari, M., and Mangano, F. G. (2019). Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review. J. Prosthodont. Res. 63 (3), 121–128. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.03.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, Z., Wang, Q., Wang, F., Li, D., Meng, M., Zhang, Y., et al. (2022). Effect of aqueous environment on wear resistance of dental glass-ceramics. BMC Oral Health 22 (1), 143. doi:10.1186/s12903-022-02183-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar