ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of different surface treatments on color and translucency of two different ceramic materials (an invitro study).
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurface treatment enhances bonding to ceramic restorations but may alter their optical properties. Lithium disilicate and zirconia respond differently to surface treatments due to variations in their microstructure. This study evaluated how sandblasting, hydrofluoric acid with silane, and laser treatment affect the color stability and translucency of these ceramics. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aimed to evaluate the individual and combined effects of ceramic material type and surface treatment on the color stability and translucency of lithium disilicate and zirconia ceramics. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty samples were constructed in the form of discs form lithium disilicate and zirconia ceramic (n = 20 for each). Samples from each material were divided into four subgroups according to the surface treatment used as following: (Ctrl); control with no surface treatment, (S.B); sandblasting using AL
resultsAmong the tested surface treatments only laser showed color change within the clinical accepted range with lithium disilicate ceramic (1.04 ± 0.15), also hydrofluoric acid etching with silane application showed that with zirconia (0.41 ± 0.10). Sandblasting showed the lower translucency value with lithium disilicate and zirconia ceramic with a significant difference with the control samples (p value ˂0.001).
conclusionsSurface treatments affected the optical properties of both ceramics in a material-dependent manner. Laser conditioning preserved color acceptably in lithium disilicate, while hydrofluoric acid with silane did so for zirconia. Sandblasting significantly reduced translucency in both materials, indicating its potential to compromise esthetic outcomes.
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.