Wear 255 (2003) 975–989

Abrasive machining of porcelain and zirconia with a dental handpiece

L. Yin1 , S. Jahanmir∗ , L.K. Ives
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8521, USA

Abstract
The machining characteristics and material removal mechanisms of two dental ceramics—feldspathic porcelain and yttria-stabilized
tetragonal zirconia—were investigated using a dental handpiece and diamond burs with different grit sizes. The material removal rates
were measured as a function of total machining time using a constant load of 2 N on the bur, consistent with clinical cutting conditions.
As the diamond grit size was increased from ultrafine (UF) (10 ␮m) to fine (F) (41 ␮m) and coarse (C) (172 ␮m), the removal rate
and the resulting surface roughness for each material increased substantially. The mechanisms of material removal determined through
microscopic examination of the machined surfaces and the machining debris on the burs were found to consist of a combination of
ductile and brittle-type chip formation processes. The occurrence of brittle fracture increased as the diamond grit size was increased.
While the material removal process in porcelain was dominated by brittle fracture, zirconia was primarily subjected to ductile cutting.
Four wear processes were identified on the burs in prolonged cutting tests: grit microfracture, grit pullout, wear flat generation, and
matrix abrasion. The results demonstrated that while the material removal rate for the zirconia evaluated in this study was lower than
those for porcelain and many other dental ceramics, the zirconia could be machined under clinical conditions with no edge chipping
damage.
© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Dental restorations; Diamond burs; Dental handpiece; Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia; Felspathic porcelain; Material removal mechanism;
Tool wear; Surface integrity

1. Introduction design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)

Abrasive machining is routinely used in dentistry for the
preparation of teeth for filling, crowns, and bridgework, and
for making final fit adjustments on dental restorations [1]. In
these machining procedures, a high-speed, air-driven den-
tal handpiece with a diamond bur is often used. In spite of
the importance of diamond machining in dentistry, there are
only a few published studies on the subject [2–8]. Recent
studies have provided data on the machining characteris-
tics of tooth enamel [4], machinable glass-ceramics [6], and
glass-infiltrated alumina [7] using a dental handpiece and
diamond burs. The purpose of the present study is to inves-
tigate the abrasive machining characteristics of a commonly
used dental porcelain and a new tetragonal zirconia.
In addition to handpiece machining performed by the
dentist, abrasive machining is used to prepare ceramic
restorations in the dental laboratory using computer-aided
∗ Corresponding author. Present address: MiTiHeart Corporation, P.O.
Box 83610, Gaithersburg, MD 20883, USA. Fax: +1-301-869-9724.
E-mail address: sjahanmir@mitiheart.com (S. Jahanmir).
1 Present address: Gintic Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Singa-
pore 638075, Singapore.
systems [9,10]. The desired shapes for crowns, onlays, or
inlays are obtained fairly rapidly using either a milling cut-
ter or an abrasive tool depending on the properties of the
workpiece material. The data obtained in abrasive machin-
ing of porcelain and zirconia with the dental handpiece can
also be used as a guide for CAD/CAM preparation of dental
restorations with these ceramics, where similar machining
conditions apply.
Porcelains have been widely used for dental restora-
tions as veneers mainly because of their excellent esthetics
[11–13]. More recently, modified feldspathic porcelains
containing crystalline reinforcements have been used as
onlays and inlays due to their high-longevity, comparable
wear resistance to natural tooth enamel, natural translu-
cency, radiopacity, and biocompatibility [14–18]. One ma-
jor problem in the use of porcelains in dentistry is their
potential for brittle, catastrophic fracture [12,19] that may
be accentuated by machining damage [20,21]. As there is
little published information available on the machining be-
havior of porcelains, one objective of the present study is
to evaluate the machining responses of porcelains.
The second objective is to characterize the machining
behavior in a high-toughness zirconia ceramic recently

0043-1648/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00195-9
976 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989
developed [22] as an alternative to porcelains or glass-
ceramics in posterior restorations. The surgical grade
yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polyscrystal (Y-TZP)
with a high-fracture strength and toughness and an out-
standing biocompatibility have been used in orthopedics
for joint replacement for more than a decade [23,24] and in
dentistry as implants, abutments, inlays, onlays, and crowns
for several years [25]. The new colored zirconia ceramics
are aesthetic and can be made to closely match the color
of human teeth [22]. Y-TZP ceramics are fully dense with
a fine microstructure consisting of submicrometer tetrago-
nal grains. The tetragonal to monoclinic transformation is
accompanied by volume dilatation that produces compres-
sive stresses, making crack propagation more difficult and
surface flaws less detrimental to fracture. Growth of micro-
scopic flaws that form during processing or surface damage
generated during service [12,19] is also impeded by the
compressive stresses in the zirconia. Although the grinding
behavior of zirconia with diamond wheels, and especially
the effect of grinding on strength, have been studied (see
for example [26]), the abrasive machining of zirconia with
the dental handpiece and dental burs have not been inves-
tigated. The surface integrity after machining, achievable
removal rates, and bur life are of primary interest when
machining the tough zirconia.
The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to inves-
tigate the abrasive machining characteristics of feldspathic
porcelain and tetragonal zirconia with a dental handpiece
and diamond burs that are commonly used in dentistry. The
removal rates are measured for burs with three diamond grit
sizes and the wear of burs is examined. The surface integrity,
including surface roughness and edge chipping is evaluated
as a function of diamond grit size. Microscopic examina-
tion of machined surfaces and machining debris is used to
determine the mechanisms of material removal. The results
of this study are compared with results of similar studies on
other dental ceramics.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Workpiece materials
The dental porcelain selected for this study was Vita
Mark II (Vita Zahnfabric, Bad Sackingen, Germany)2 com-
monly used for inlays, onlays and veneer restorations in
the CAD/CAM Cerec system (Siemens, Bensheim, Ger-
many). The microstructure analyzed in a scanning elec-
tron micrograph of a polished cross-section consisted of a
glass matrix containing approximately 30% (volume frac-
tion) of irregularly-shaped crystalline particles measuring
from 1 to 7 ␮m in size, some of which were crystalline sani-
2 Information on product names, manufacturers, and suppliers is in-
cluded for clarification. This does not imply endorsement of the products
or services by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
dine [27]. Reported [28] mechanical properties are: Vickers
hardness = 6.3 ± 0.3 GPa, Young’s modulus = 69.7 GPa,
and fracture toughness = 1.19 ± 0.05 MPa m1/2 . Specimens
3 mm × 4 mm × 25 mm in dimension were cut from blocks
and all the surfaces were sand-blasted to achieve a uniform
surface roughness.
The yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia evaluated in this
study was a commercial, surgical grade zirconia, Prozyr
(Norton-St. Gobain, Northboro, MA), containing 3% mole
fraction (5.1 ± 0.3% mass fraction) of yttria. It was prepared
by isostatic pressing followed by sintering. The grain size
distribution determined on a polished surface was relatively
uniform with an average grain size of 0.6 ␮m [27]. The re-
ported [28] mechanical properties are: Vickers hardness =
(13.9 ± 0.4) GPa, Young’s modulus = 210 GPa, fracture
toughness = (4.9±0.2) MPa m1/2 . The test specimens were
received in the form of bars with a rectangular cross-section
(3 mm × 5 mm × 25 mm). The received specimens had been
prepared by grinding with a 320-grit diamond wheel on all
surfaces.
2.2. Test apparatus
The machining apparatus utilized in this investigation has
been described previously [6]. It incorporated a high-speed
air-turbine-type handpiece equipped with an air–water mist
delivery system (625C Super Torque, KaVo American
Corp.). The dental handpiece was clamped to an arm that
pivoted freely on a ball bearing support. The load between
the bur and workpiece was established by a pulley and
suspended weight arrangement.
2.3. Diamond burs
Disposable dental diamond burs manufactured by NTI Di-
amond (Axis Dental Corporation, Irving, TX) were used.
Each bur comprised a steel blank of fixed diameter for
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of groove cut into a test sample with
a diamond bur, showing the designations used in the text for different
surfaces: (1) top surface, (2) bottom surface, (3) inside surface, (4) side
surface, and (5) front surface.
 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989 977

mounting in the handpiece and a cutting portion that con-
sisted of a single layer of synthetic diamond grit, elec-
trolytically codeposited with nickel. Burs of three different
grit sizes designated by the manufacturer as ultrafine (862
012UF), fine (862 012F), and coarse (862 012C) were used.
The average diameter of the diamond particles were esti-
mated from a series of micrographs obtained by scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) on new burs to be 10±3, 41±17,
and 172 ± 49 ␮m, respectively. The burs had a pre-plated
nominal diameter of 1.2 mm and a straight cylindrical ge-
ometry with a flame-shaped tip at the end. The burs were
positioned so that only the straight cylindrical portion was in
contact with the porcelain and zirconia workpieces (Fig. 1).
The actual bur diameter in the diamond section was larger
than the nominal diameter due to the added thickness of the
plated layer and the diamond grit [6].
2.4. Machining procedure
The orientation of the bur during machining with respect
to the specimen is illustrated in Fig. 1, which also shows
schematically the various features associated with a single
groove cut in the specimen. The bur was oriented approxi-
mately parallel to the 3 mm × 25 mm surface of the speci-
men (designated 5 in Fig. 1). A series of grooves was made
along the length of each specimen.

Fig. 2. The volumetric removal rate as a function of total machining time for (a) porcelain and (b) zirconia cut with diamond burs of three different
grit sizes (UF: ultrafine, F: fine, and C: course). The mean value from the repeat tests with three new burs of each grit size is represented by the data
symbols. The uncertainty bars represent ± one standard deviation of the measured removal rates. The lines are empirical best fit to the data. Before the
fourth cut at 40 s, the burs were ultrasonically cleaned for 30 s.
978 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989

Water coolant was delivered to the handpiece at a constant (Rz ) were used to characterize surface roughness. Three
flow rate of (15 ± 2) ml/min during cutting. The handpiece traces were made at different positions along each groove.
was positioned such that the water spray nozzle was located The mean values and the standard deviations of measure-
at 180◦ with respect to the bur–specimen contact. Before ments were determined from the three repeat measurements
each test series was begun, a light hydrocarbon lubricant on the three grooves cut with the three burs of each grit
(KaVo lubricant spray, KaVo American Corp.) was applied size.
for approximately 1 s to lubricate the handpiece bearings. Several machined specimens were ultrasonically cleaned,
The handpiece was then run without load for 60 s, as sug- sputter coated with gold, and examined in the SEM to assess
gested by Siegel and Von Fraunhofer [5], to remove the ex- the mechanisms of material removal during machining and
cess lubricant. to examine the groove edges for chipping damage. The quan-
A constant applied load of 2 N, typical of that used by tity used to determine the degree of edge chipping at each
clinicians in finishing operations [3,5], was used in the cut- groove was the projected chipped area per unit length (or
ting experiments. At a constant air pressure of 241 ± 7 kPa average chipping width) measured along the groove edges
(35 ± 1 psi), the pressure used throughout out this investi-
gation, the rotational speed of the bur was approximately
320,000 rpm, measured by means of a strobe-type tachome-
ter (Strobotac 1538-A, General Radio Company). On con-
tacting the specimen under the 2 N load the speed dropped
to 260,000 rpm where it remained until the handpiece was
removed from the specimen.
Three burs of each diamond grit size were used in the
study for each test condition to allow for evaluation of the
repeatability of the results. The machining sequence con-
sisted of cutting a series of four grooves with each bur along
the length of the porcelain and zirconia bars. The cutting du-
ration for each groove was approximately 5 s for porcelain
and 10 s for zirconia. A longer cutting duration was used for
the zirconia to account for the lower removal rate. The burs
were removed from the handpiece prior to the fourth cut and
were ultrasonically cleaned in water for 30 s (Cole-Parmer
Instrument Company, Chicago, IL). Bur cleaning was done
to reduce the possible effect of bur loading on the removal
rate.

2.5. Characterization methods

The volume removal rate for each groove was determined

by dividing the groove volume by the time to cut the groove.
The groove volume was determined by multiplying the av-
erage of the top and bottom groove areas by the specimen
thickness. An image analysis system (Leica Microimage
Video System with Image-Pro Plus) was used to measure
the top and bottom groove areas. The actual cutting dura-
tion was determined from the cutting force data that were
recorded as a function of time [6]. The means and standard
deviations were determined from the measurements on the
grooves that were cut with the three burs of each grit size
for the same machining duration.
Surface roughness was measured by means of a stylus
profilometer (Perthen, Mahr GmbH). The traces perpendic-
ular to the machining direction were made across the bottom
of the grooves (designated 3 in Fig. 1) using a trace length of
1.75 mm and a cut off length of 0.25 mm. Arithmetic mean
roughness (Ra ), maximum roughness (Rmax ), and mean
roughness, i.e. the average of five largest distances between Fig. 3. SEM micrographs of the burs after machining porcelain: (a)
the highest and the lowest points within the sampling length ultrafine bur, (b) fine bur, and (c) coarse bur.
 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989
on the top and bottom surfaces of the specimens (designated
1 and 2 in Fig. 1). The projected chipped area is the area of
the chip projected on the plane of the top or bottom spec-
imen surfaces. Measurements of the chipped area and the
edge length of the grooves were made with the same image
analysis system used to determine the groove volume. Fol-
lowing the cutting experiments, the burs were sputter coated
with gold and examined by SEM, without prior cleaning,
to determine the condition of the burs with respect to bur
loading and grit wear and to identify the types of machining
chips that were left on the burs.
2.6. Evaluation of bur wear
A series of prolonged cutting tests was conducted to fur-
ther evaluate the wear of diamond burs. In these tests, one
bur of each grit size was used to cut 60 grooves in the porce-
lain (5 s duration each) for a total machining time of 300 s.
Similarly, one fine bur was used to cut 72 grooves in the
zirconia (10 s duration each) for a total machining time of
720 s. The burs were ultrasonically cleaned in water for 30 s
several times during the tests. This procedure was followed
to minimize the influence of bur loading by removing the ma-
chining debris attached to the bur. At the end of the tests, the
material removal rate was measured for each groove; and the
Fig. 4. SEM micrographs of zirconia machining debris on the burs: (a) small debris on an ultrafine bur, (b) a curled cutting chip on a fine bur, (c) debris
on a coarse bur, and (d) elongated chips on a coarse bur.
979
burs were ultrasonically cleaned, sputter coated with gold,
and examined in the SEM to check for wear and grit pull
out.
3. Results
3.1. Material removal rate
The removal rates achieved with the diamond burs were
higher for porcelain (Fig. 2(a)), than for zirconia (Fig. 2(b)),
by at least one order of magnitude. The removal rate for
both materials increased with an increase in the diamond
grit size. The removal rate for porcelain with the coarse burs
was approximately 15% higher than the removal rate with
the fine burs (Fig. 2(a)), even though the grit size was more
than three times larger. The removal rate for porcelain with
the coarse burs was four to six times larger than the removal
rate with the ultrafine burs. The removal rate for zirconia
with the coarse burs was approximately 50% higher than the
removal rate with the fine burs and 150% higher than the
removal rate with the ultrafine burs (Fig. 2(b)).
In general, the removal rates for both materials decreased
as the total machining time was increased (Fig. 2). Ultrasonic
cleaning of the burs prior to the fourth cut to remove bur
980 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989

loading did not substantially affect the removal rate, with
one exception. The removal rate for zirconia with the coarse
burs stayed relatively constant for the first three cuts, but
it decreased for the last cut, in spite of ultrasonic cleaning
prior to making the cut.
3.2. Material removal mechanisms
Examination in the SEM of the burs after machining did
not reveal clear evidence of wear, despite a trend towards
decreasing removal rate with increasing cutting time in
these short tests. Examination of the burs used to cut the
porcelain showed numerous, very fine, submicrometer de-
bris on the ultrafine and fine burs as well as a few larger
particles (Fig. 3(a)), and agglomerated debris (Fig. 3(b)).
No debris was seen on the coarse burs (Fig. 3(c)). The
sharp edges on the larger particles and the fragmented na-
ture of the fine debris suggest material removal by brittle
fracture.
Four types of machining debris were observed on the burs
after cutting zirconia. The debris on the ultrafine burs con-
sisted mostly of small acicular particles 1–2 ␮m in length
(Fig. 4(a)). Several ribbon-like curled chips, often associated
with ductile cutting, as well as small fragmented particles
were seen on the fine burs (Fig. 4(b)). Debris on the coarse
burrs (Fig. 4(c)), consisted primarily of small equiaxed

Fig. 5. SEM micrographs of porcelain machined surfaces cut with ultrafine burs (a and d), fine burs (b and e), and coarse burs (c and f). The micrographs
in (d–f) show the same surfaces as in (a–c) but at a higher magnification.
 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989 981

particles with dimensions on the order 1 ␮m or less, that are
characteristic of chip formation by brittle fracture. Elongated
chips, 20 ␮m in length and 1–2 ␮m in width, characteristic
of segmented chips produced by ductile cutting, were also
seen on the coarse burs (Fig. 4(d)). X-ray energy dispersive
analysis in the SEM confirmed that the debris in Figs. 3
and 4 originated from the respective porcelain and zirconia
workpieces.
The machined porcelain and zirconia surfaces viewed in
the SEM consisted mostly of a series of parallel scratches
(Figs. 5 and 6). The width of these scratches that appeared
to be formed by plastic deformation increased as the grit
size was increased (see Fig. 5(a–c) for porcelain, and
Fig. 6(a–c) for zirconia). The machined porcelain surfaces
also contained features (pits with clearly defined edges) that
were characteristic of a brittle removal process (i.e. brittle
fracture). Examination of the machined surfaces at a higher
magnification (Fig. 5(d–f)), indicated an increasing trend
for microfracture as the grit size was increased. In contrast,
the scratches on zirconia surfaces did not contain much
evidence for brittle fracture and the smooth scratches were
characteristic of a ductile removal process (i.e. plastic defor-
mation). The zirconia surfaces machined with the ultrafine
burs were mostly characterized with very smooth scratches
associated with plowing or ductile cutting (Fig. 6(d)). The
zirconia surfaces machined with the coarse burs contained
characteristic features associated with plastic flow, delami-
nation of deformed layer, and side flow across the scratches

Fig. 6. SEM micrographs of zirconia machined surfaces cut with ultrafine burs (a and d), fine burs (b and e), and coarse burs (c and f). The micrographs
in (d–f) show the same surfaces as in (a–c) but at a higher magnification.
982 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989

(Fig. 6(f)). Similar features were seen on the zirconia sur-
faces machined with fine burs (Fig. 6(e)), but the occurrence
of microfracture and delamination was less with the fine
burs.
3.3. Surface integrity
The measured surface roughness values, Ra , Rz , and Rmax ,
increased for both materials as the grit size was increased
(Figs. 7 and 8). There was no effect of total machining time
on the roughness parameters. The roughness appeared to
be independent of the material being machined, and only
the grit size had a major influence on roughness. The Ra
roughness generated with the coarse burs was about three
times as high as the Ra for the fine burs and 18 times as high
as the Ra for the ultrafine burs. The increase in roughness
was consistent with the SEM observations that showed wider
and deeper scratches as the grit size was increased (Figs. 5
and 6).
Examination in the SEM of the machined grooves in the
porcelain showed no chipping damage with the ultrafine burs
(Fig. 9(a)), only slight chipping with the fine burs (Fig. 9(b)),
and relatively large chipped areas along the edges when
coarse burs were used (Fig. 9(c)). Examination of the ma-
chined grooves in zirconia showed no evidence for edge
chipping (Fig. 10(a–c)), even for the grooves cut with the
coarse burs (Fig. 10(c)). The average chipping width mea-
sured for porcelain (Fig. 11), confirmed the strong influence
of diamond grit size on edge chipping in that material. The
porcelain samples showed a 5–10-fold increase in the ex-
tent of chipping with the coarse burs compared with the fine
burs. The standard deviations (Fig. 11), were much larger for
the coarse burs than the fine burs, indicating the difficulty in
maintaining a consistent edge quality with the coarse burs.

Fig. 7. Arithmetic average roughness (Ra ), 10 point height roughness (Rz ) and maximum roughness (Rmax ) for the grooves cut in porcelain with coarse,
fine, and ultrafine diamond burs. Each data point is the mean value from three repeat cuts with three different burs under the same machining condition;
the error bars represent ± one standard deviation for the cuts.
 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989 983

Fig. 8. Arithmetic average roughness (Ra ), 10 point height roughness (Rz ) and maximum roughness (Rmax ) for the grooves cut in zirconia with coarse,
fine, and ultrafine diamond burs. Each data point is the mean value from three repeat cuts with three different burs under the same machining conditions;
the error bars represent ± one standard deviation for the cuts.

The average chipping widths with the ultrafine burs were
negligible.
3.4. Wear of diamond burs
The removal rate of porcelain after prolonged tests (300 s
of machining) was reduced by 70, 90 and 80% for the ul-
trafine, fine and coarse burs (Fig. 12(a)), presumably due to
wear of the burs. The removal rate of zirconia after 720 s
of machining with the fine bur was reduced by only 50%
(Fig. 12(b)). Examination of the burs in the SEM after the
prolonged cutting tests and following ultrasonic cleaning to
remove the machining debris revealed four types of wear
damage: grit dislodgment, grit fracture, attritious wear, and
matrix abrasion. The extent of each damage type was dif-
ferent for each workpiece and the diamond grit size. Grit
dislodgment or pullout (Fig. 13(a)), probably due to poorly
held particles in the matrix or application of excessive grit
load, accounted for about 20% diamond loss in the ultrafine
bur when machining porcelain. Although grit dislodgment
accounted for about 8 and 9% diamond loss after machining
porcelain with the fine and coarse burs, grit fracture, where
large portions of the grit were cleaved off (Fig. 13(b–c)),
was found to be the dominant wear process in these burs.
Similarly, while grit dislodgment accounted for about 15%
diamond loss (Fig. 14(a)), when machining zirconia with
the fine burs, grit fracture (Fig. 14(b)), was found to be the
dominant wear process. Several diamond grit were found to
contain wear flats, where the grit edges had been worn pro-
ducing small flat surfaces (Fig. 14(c)). Wear flat generation,
or attritious wear, was also observed in burs used for porce-
lain machining, but it was not a common wear process with
984 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989
Fig. 9. SEM micrographs showing typical chipping damage around the
groove top surfaces for porcelain cut with (a) an ultrafine bur, (b) a fine
bur, and (c) a coarse bur.
either material. Abrasion damage to the nickel matrix was
also observed (Fig. 14(b)).
4. Discussion
In this study, we have compared the abrasive machining
behavior of dental porcelain with a high-strength zirconia
using dental burs of three different grit sizes. The results
clearly show a distinct difference in response for the two
materials, both with respect to the removal rates achieved
during cutting and the basic removal mechanisms. The re-
moval rates for the porcelain were larger by at least one
order of magnitude than for zirconia. While the removal
Fig. 10. SEM micrographs showing no chipping damage around the groove
top surfaces for zirconia cut with (a) an ultrafine bur, (b) a fine bur, and
(c) a coarse bur.
rates for the porcelain were equivalent to that of Dicor, a
machinable glass ceramic [6], the removal rate of zirconia
was close to the rate obtained for InCeram alumina [7].
These four ceramics seem to show a correlation between
the removal rate and hardness. However, a more systematic
analysis is needed before an authoritative statement can be
made. Although the removal rates of porcelain and zirconia
are significantly different, the surface roughness parameters
are almost indistinguishable when the same bur grit size is
used. This material-independent roughness behavior is con-
sistent with the previous results for glass-ceramics [6] and
glass-infiltrated alumina [7], and with a Monte Carlo simu-
lation of surface roughness generated by abrasive machining
 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989
Fig. 11. Average chipping width around the groove surfaces in porcelain cut with coarse, fine, and ultrafine diamond burs. Each data point is the mean
value from three repeat cuts with three different burs under the same machining conditions; the error bars represent ± one standard deviation for the cuts.
[29]. In that study, surface roughness was shown to be pri-
marily sensitive to the grit size, consistent with the present
results.
Diamond grit size plays an important role in abrasive ma-
chining. It is generally believed that higher removal rates
can be achieved by coarser grit burs, and therefore, coarse
burs are often used for gross tooth reduction [8]. The rela-
tionship between the removal rate and grit size, however, is
not necessarily linear for all materials. While the removal
rate for porcelain was higher by about 15% with coarse burs
than with fine burs, the removal rate for zirconia increased
by nearly 50% upon the use of coarse burs. The removal rate
for machinable glass-ceramics did not always increase with
the use of coarse burs [6]. However, coarse burs substantially
increased the extent of chipping damage along the edges of
the grooves cut in glass-ceramics [6], similar to the results on
porcelain in the present study. The zirconia ceramic, unlike
the porcelain, did not exhibit any visible edge chipping with
any of the burs used in this study. Since edge retention at
the margins and the achievement of close dimensional toler-
ances are important issues in obtaining high-quality restora-
tions, one must balance the high-removal rates often asso-
ciated with the use of coarse burs with the potential loss
of surface/edge integrity. The use of coarse burs could also
increase the propensity for generation of subsurface cracks
with concomitant strength degradation [20]. The strength
reduction due to machining-induced damage is, however,
material-dependent. The yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia
is less sensitive to machining damage compared to many
other polycrystalline ceramics [26].
The effect of grit size on removal rate and edge chip-
ping is not necessarily a simple phenomenon. Usually, an
985
increase in the grit size is accompanied by a reduction in the
number of diamond particles in dental burs [6]. Therefore,
with the same load is applied to the bur, the grit load can be
much larger with a coarser bur. The higher grit load causes
an increased grit penetration into the ceramic workpiece re-
sulting in a higher removal rate and generation of surface
and subsurface cracks. Both the removal rate and the ex-
tent of chipping damage depend on the same properties that
control deformation and fracture of the ceramics, i.e. hard-
ness and toughness [30], that also control the mode of ma-
terial removal, i.e. brittle fracture versus plastic deformation
[20].
The material removal mechanism in abrasive machining
of porcelain was dominated by brittle fracture, as seen by the
pits with sharp edges on the machined surfaces (Fig. 5) and
the fragmented appearance of the machining debris (Fig. 3).
However, the removal mechanisms for zirconia were primar-
ily plastic deformation and microcutting, as evidenced by
the smooth furrows on the machined surfaces (Fig. 6) and
the ribbon-like shape of the machining debris (Fig. 4). The
difference in the behavior of these two materials with respect
to the predominance of brittle fracture or plastic deforma-
tion is consistent with Hertzian contact studies [27]. For the
porcelain, the response to indentation with a tungsten car-
bide sphere was classical brittle fracture, i.e. formation of
a well defined cone crack [27]. The response for zirconia,
however, was primarily plastic or quasi-plastic, i.e. evolu-
tion of a diffuse subsurface zone of microscopic shear cracks
[27]. The brittle/ductile response of these two materials to
indentation can also be predicted by using a brittleness in-
dex proposed by Rhee et al. [31], derived from the ratio of
the contact load needed for initiation of subsurface plastic
986 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989

Fig. 12. The volumetric removal rate as a function of total machining time in prolonged cutting tests for (a) porcelain and (b) zirconia. Diamond burs of
three different grit sizes (ultrafine, fine, and course) were used in the tests with porcelain, while only a fine bur was used with zirconia. The burs were
ultrasonically cleaned several times during the test series.

yield to the threshold load for the formation of ring cracks.
The distinction between the brittle/ductile behavior of these
two materials can also be predicted by using a similar brit-
tleness index proposed by Quinn and Quinn [32], related to
the ratio of deformation energy to fracture energy.
The disposable or single-patient diamond burs employed
in the present study are chosen by the clinicians to minimize
cross-contamination risks of bloodborne pathogens [33]. It
is likely that such burs would be used no more than a few
tens of seconds before being discarded. However, our results
indicate that these single-patient burs can be used for sev-
eral minutes without a significant loss of cutting efficiency.
The cutting efficiency is measured by the reduction in the
removal rate as a function of cutting time. The decrease in
the removal rate as a function of cutting time is generally
due to bur loading (attachment of machining debris to the
bur) and wear of the diamond particles. The influence of bur
loading in our study, however, was minimal since ultrasonic
cleaning of the burs prior to the fourth cuts did not signifi-
cantly increase the removal rate (Fig. 2).
Wear of the burs occurred through grit fracture, grit
pullout, wear flat generation or attritious wear, and matrix
damage. These results are consistent with the observed
wear mechanisms previously discussed for dental cutting
 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989
Fig. 13. SEM micrographs of the burs after prolonged cutting tests on
porcelain: (a) grit dislodgment on the ultrafine bur, (b) grit fracture on
the fine bur, and (c) grit fracture on the coarse bur.
of glass-infiltrated alumina [7]. The observed grit fracture
suggests that a friable (self-sharpening) diamond had been
used in the burs, which may explain the fairly high-cutting
efficiency of the burs in prolonged tests.
The wear mechanisms in diamond burs can also be influ-
enced by the grit size. It is generally accepted that finer di-
amond particles are stronger than the larger ones due to the
lower flaw population as the original flaws in the large par-
ticles are eliminated by fracture when finer grit is made by
crushing the coarse diamond particles [34]. Therefore, less
grit fracture is expected for finer burs. However, fine burs
are more prone to matrix damage since the space available
for debris removal is smaller for the fine burs. The machin-
987
Fig. 14. SEM micrographs of a fine bur prolonged cutting tests on zirconia
showing different types of wear and damage: (a) grit dislodgment, (b)
grit fracture and matrix abrasion, and (c) wear flat generation.
ing debris could cause abrasion damage on the metal matrix
used to hold the diamond particles on the bur, weakening
the bond between the diamond particles and the matrix, and
resulting in grit loss. Therefore, grit loss becomes a more
dominant wear process for finer burs.
5. Conclusions
In this study, we investigated the machining character-
istics of feldspathic porcelain and tetragonal zirconia with
988 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989
a dental handpiece and diamond burs of varying grit sizes
under simulated clinical cutting conditions. The following
conclusions are drawn from the results:
(1) As the diamond grit size was increased from ultrafine
(10 ␮m) to fine (40 ␮m) and coarse (151 ␮m) the re-
moval rate and the resulting surface roughness for both
materials increased substantially.
(2) The removal rate for porcelain was much higher than
for zirconia for all grit sizes.
(3) The porcelain sustained severe edge chipping with both
coarse and fine burs, but edge chipping was essentially
absent with the ultrafine burs. The zirconia was free of
edge chipping for all grit sizes.
(4) The surface roughness increased with increasing grit
size for both porcelain and zirconia, and it was material-
independent.
(5) The mechanisms of material removal determined
through microscopic examination of the machined sur-
faces and the machining debris on the burs were found
to consist of a combination of ductile and brittle-type
chip formation processes. The occurrence of brittle
fracture increased as the diamond grit size was in-
creased. While the material removal process in the
porcelain was dominated by brittle fracture, the re-
moval process in zirconia was dominated by ductile
cutting.
(6) Four wear processes were identified on the burs in pro-
longed cutting tests: grit microfracture, grit pullout, wear
flat generation, and matrix abrasion.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the generous supply of materials from
Norton St. Gobain and Vita Zhanfabrik. This project
was supported by NIDCR Program Project Grant No.
P01 DE 10976. We are grateful to Professors E.D.
Rekow and V.P. Thompson of the New York University
College of Dentistry for their overall guidance of this
program.
References
[1] C.M. Stuedevant, T.M. Roberson, H.O. Heymann, J.R. Sturdevant,
The Art and Science of Operative Dentistry, third ed., Moshy-Year
Book Inc., St. Louis, 1995, pp. 345–357.
[2] J.A. Von Fraunhofer, T.J. Overmyer, A.A. Johnson, Improved cutting
of tooth enamel with dental burs, Quintessence Int. Oper. Dent.
18 (6) (1987) 383–385.
[3] J.A. Von Fraunhofer, C.D. Givens, T.J. Overmyer, Lubricating
coolants for high-speed dental handpieces, J. Am. Dent. Assoc.
119 (8) (1989) 291–295.
[4] H.H.K. Xu, J.R. Kelly, S. Jahanmir, V.P. Thompson, E.D. Redow,
Enamel subsurface damage due to tooth preparation with diamonds,
J. Dent. Res. 76 (10) (1997) 1698–1706.
[5] S.C. Siegel, J.A. Von Fraunhofer, Effect of handpiece load on the
cutting efficiency of dental burs, Mach. Sci. Technol. 1 (1) (1997)
1–13.
[6] X. Dong, L. Yin, S. Jahanmir, L.K. Ives, E.D. Rekow, Abrasive
machining of glass-ceramics with a dental handpiece, Mach. Sci.
Technol. 4 (2) (2000) 209–233.
[7] L. Yin, L.K. Ives, S. Jahanmir, E.D. Rekow, E. Romberg, Machining
characteristics of glass-infiltrated alumina with diamond burs, Mach.
Sci. Technol. 5 (1) (2001) 43–61.
[8] S.C. Siegel, J.A. Von Fraunhofer, Dental cutting: the historical
development of diamond burs, J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 129 (6) (1998)
740–745.
[9] E.D. Rekow, A.G. Erdman, D.R. Riley, B. Klamecki, CAD/CAM
for dental restorations—some of the curious challenges, IEEE Trans.
Biomed. Eng. 38 (4) (1991) 314–318.
[10] E.D. Rekow, Dental CAD/CAM systems, J. Am. Dent. Assoc.
122 (13) (1991) 42–48.
[11] M. Friedman, Augmenting restorative dentistry with porcelain
veneers, J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 122 (6) (1991) 29–34.
[12] J.R. Kelly, Ceramics in restorative and prosthetic dentistry, Mater.
Sci. 27 (1997) 443–468.
[13] M. Rosenblum, A. Schulman, A review of all-ceramic restorations,
J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 128 (3) (1997) 297–307.
[14] I. Denry, J. Mackert, L. Holloway, S. Rosentiel, Effect of cubic
leucite stabilization on the flexural strength of feldspathic dental
porcelain, J. Dent. Res. 75 (12) (1996) 1928–1935.
[15] R. Seghi, I. Dnery, S. Rosenstiel, Relative fracture toughness and
hardness of new dental ceramics, J. Prosthet. Dent. 74 (2) (1995)
145–150.
[16] I. Krejci, F. Lutz, M. Reimer, Wear of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays:
restorations, opposing cups, and luting cements, Quintessence Int.
25 (3) (1994) 199–207.
[17] H. Schwickerath, The strength characteristics of cerec, Quintessenz
43 (1992) 669–677.
[18] I. Krejci, in: W. Mormann (Ed.), Wear of cerec and other restorative
materials, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer
Restorations, Quintessence Publishing, Chicago, IL, USA, 1991,
pp. 245–251.
[19] J.R. Kelly, I. Nishimura, S.D. Campbell, Ceramics in dentistry:
historical roots and current perspectives, J. Prosthet. Dent. 75 (1)
(1996) 18–32.
[20] S. Jahanmir, H.H.K. Xu, L.K. Ives, in: S. Jahanmir, P. Koshy,
M. Ramulu (Eds.), Mechanism of Materials Removal in Abrasive
Machining of Ceramics, Machining of Ceramics and Composites,
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1999, pp. 11–84.
[21] H.H.K. Xu, S. Jahanmir, L.K. Ives, Material removal and damage
formation mechanisms in grinding silicon nitride, J. Mater. Res.
11 (7) (1996) 1717–1724.
[22] B. Cales, Colored zirconia ceramics for dental applications,
Bioceramics 11 (1998) 591–594.
[23] B. Cales, Zirconia ceramic for improved hip prosthesis—a review,
in: Proceedings of the Sixth Biomaterials Symposium on Ceramic
Implant Materials in Orthopedic Surgery, Gottingen, Germany,
1994.
[24] J. Chevalier, J.M. Drouin, B. Cales, in: L. Sedel, C. Rey (Eds.),
Low Temperature Aging Behavior of Zirconia Hip Joint Heads,
Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Ceramics in
Medicine, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997.
[25] Active Biomedicale, Norton Desmarquest, 1998.
[26] H.H.K. Xu, S. Jahanmir, L.K. Ives, Effect of grinding on strength
of tetragonal zirconia and zirconia-toughened alumina, Mach. Sci.
Technol. 1 (1) (1997) 49–66.
[27] I.M. Peterson, A. Pajares, B.R. Lawn, V.P. Thomspon, E.D. Rekow,
Mechanical characterization of dental ceramics by hertzian contacts,
J. Dent. Res. 77 (4) (1998) 589–602.
[28] J. Quinn, L. Su, L. Flanders, L. Lloyd, Edge toughness and material
properties related to the machining of dental ceramics, Mach. Sci.
Technol. 4 (2) (2000) 291–304.
 L. Yin et al. / Wear 255 (2003) 975–989 989

[29] P. Koshy, L.K. Ives, S. Jahanmir, Simulation of diamond ground
surfaces, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufac. 39 (1999) 1451–1470.
[30] B.R. Lawn, Fracture of Brittle Solids, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 1993.
[31] Y.-W. Rhee, H.-W. Kim, Y. Deng, B.R. Lawn, Brittle fracture versus
quasi plasticity in ceramics: a simple predictive index, J. Am. Ceram.
Soc. 84 (3) (2001) 561–565.
[32] J.B. Quinn, G.D. Quinn, Indentation brittleness of ceramics: a fresh
approach, J. Mater. Sci. 32 (1997) 4331–4346.
[33] G.J. Christensen, R.P. Christensen, Single patient-use diamond rotary
instruments, Clin. Res. Assoc. Newslett. 15 (6) (1991) 1–2.
[34] M.C. Shaw, Principles of Abrasive Processing, Oxford Science
Publications, Oxford, 1996.