ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of different glazing methods on the surface roughness and hardness of zirconia ceramics: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optical properties, surface roughness, and bacterial adhesion of feldspathic CAD/CAM ceramic material after immersion in staining media with different pH.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Simulated brushing effects on surface roughness and color stability of coated additively manufactured dental resin: an in vitro study.Journal of medicine and life · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlazing enhances both the aesthetics and functionality of zirconia restorations by creating a smooth, glassy surface. The traditional glazing method involves powder and liquid, but newer spray and paste techniques have been developed to simplify the process and improve efficiency. This study evaluated the effects of different glazing methods on the surface roughness and hardness of monolithic translucent zirconia ceramics.
methodsThirty highly translucent, pre-shaded (XTCERA SHT, Shenzhen Xiangtong Co., Ltd., China) zirconia samples, with shade A3 (12 × 10 × 2 mm), were divided into three groups based on the glazing method (n = 10): Group 1 (glazed using powder and liquid), Group 2 (glazed with paste), and Group 3 (glazed with spray). After glazing, each group was further divided into two subgroups (n = 5): Subgroup A (non-corroded samples) and Subgroup B (corroded samples). Corrosion was induced by immersing Subgroup B samples of each group in 4% acetic acid, while Subgroup A samples were immersed in distilled water. Then all samples were tested for surface hardness and roughness. Surface hardness was measured using a Vickers diamond indenter, while surface roughness was assessed using a non-contact optical profilometer (U500x Digital Microscope, Guangdong, China) with WSxM analysis software. After testing, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Quantitative data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), with comparisons made using the t-test and one-way ANOVA (P ≤ 0.05).
resultsHardness results revealed that there were no significant differences before and after corrosion for any group, Group 1 (p = 0.977), Group 2 (p = 0.969), and Group 3 (p = 0.857), whereas surface roughness testing showed a significant increase in roughness postcorrosion, with Group 1 differing significantly from Group 2 (p = 0.034) and Group 1 from Group 3 (p = 0.038).
conclusionThe type of glazing method (powder and liquid, paste, or spray) did not significantly affect the hardness of zirconia ceramics. However, the powder and liquid method resulted in a smoother surface, particularly after corrosion.
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.