ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Alternative Treatments for Zirconium Oxide to Compare Commonly Used Surface Treatments to Determine Which Has the Least Effect on the Phase Transformation.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional mechanical processing of zirconium leads to an unfavorable transformation, from a metastable tetragonal phase to a monoclinic phase (t→m), which weakens the structure of the material and subsequently leads to damage to the prosthetic restoration. The aim of this research is to compare commonly used surface treatments to determine which has the least effect on t→m. Thirty cylindrical samples made of sintered zirconium were divided into six groups based on the following treatments: polishing, grinding, sandblasting, chemical etching, laser structuring or dry plasma etching. After surface treatment, the samples were subjected to the following tests: X-Ray Diffraction, microscopic examination, surface wettability and surface roughness measurements. Chemical etching, laser structuring and plasma etching significantly reduce the content of the monoclinic phase. All surface treatments significantly reduced the final amount of the monoclinic phase. However, chemical etching did not provide sufficient surface roughness. Both laser and plasma processing offer the advantage of creating structural patterns on the surface of elements. However, as plasma etching requires a mask to obtain the appropriate pattern on the surface, it seems that laser processing offers more and varied structuring possibilities. Laser structuring is easier to control and more economical than the other methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.