Table 5 Gloss change (ΔGU) comparison of the materials according to the polishing methods and immersion solutions of the test groups.

From: The Effect of Erosive Media on Color Stability, Gloss, and Surface Roughness of Monolithic CAD/CAM Materials Subjected to Different Polishing Methods

 

Polishing method

Immersion solution

   

Group

 

Artificial saliva

Acidic beverage

Gastric acid

p

 

M

3.97±3.9Aa

19.14±7.79Ab

22.73±5.49Ab

<0.001†

FC

2.45(4.9)

16(11.5)

20(4.7)

G

6.78±4.02Aa

13.69±5.5Ab

24.13±6.76Ab

<0.001¥

6.3(6)

14.6(5.3)

24.1(9.5)

MG

7.11±8.28Aa

18.62±8.14Ab

23.11±7.93Ab

0.002¥

4.8(4.5)

18.7(11.2)

22.1(10.6)

p

0.185¥

0.316¥

0.939¥

 

LDC

M

3.45±3.32Aa

10.07±5.73Aa

16.65±9.91Ab

0.002¥

2.05(4.1)

7.45(6.5)

22.05(16)

G

1.22±0,61Aa

10.77±6.5Ab

19.58±9.02Ab

<0.001†

1.3(1.1)

11.25(10)

19.55(11.3)

MG

1.67±1.52Aa

19.37±6.31Bb

23.44±8.21Ab

<0.001¥

1.3(3.2)

18.8(10.5)

21.8(8.7)

p

 

0.242¥

0.004†

0.523¥

 

RNC

M

6.72±5.3Aa

9.85±6.03Aa

17.12±7.02Ab

0.006¥

6.25(7.4)

9.55(8.4)

17.45(10.7)

G

1.92±1.65Ba

12.62±10.4Ab

21.79±11.48Ac

0.002¥

1.3(0.8)

11.85(17.4)

24.05(13.4)

MG

5.56±3.12Aa

10.62±3.33Aa

21.76±4.4Ab

<0.001†

6.25(4.5)

9.95(6.3)

20.8(4.5)

p

 

0.005†

0.815¥

0.281¥

 
  1. (FC: Feldspathic ceramic, LDC: Lithium disilicate glass ceramics, RNC: resin nano-ceramic, M: mechanical polishing, G: glaze, MG: mechanical polishing + glaze)The data were presented as the mean ± SD and median(IQR). The statistically significant p-value is in bold (p<0,05). † for the ANOVA test and ¥ for the Kruskal-Wallis test.Different lowercase letters indicate the difference between solutions of the same material (between rows).Different capital letters indicate the difference between materials in the same solution (between columns).
Back to article page