Clinical Oral Investigations

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02953-6

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Different polishing methods for zirconia: impact on surface, optical,

and mechanical properties
Regina Pfefferle 1 & Nina Lümkemann 1 & Felicitas Wiedenmann 1 & Bogna Stawarczyk 1

Received: 15 February 2019 / Accepted: 6 May 2019

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Objectives To test the impact of polishing strategies on zirconia properties.
Materials and methods One hundred eight zirconia specimens were divided into nine groups (n = 12/group). Seven groups were
polished in the white-stage with either (1) a felt wheel (FW), (2) a felt wheel combined with a polishing paste (FWP), (3) a goat
hair brush (GB), (4) a goat hair brush combined with a polishing paste (GBP), (5) a green-state finishing kit (FK), (6) a universal
polisher (UP), or (7) with SiC polishing paper (PP), and sintered. Thereafter, the seven groups were divided into two subgroups
each and polished using (1) a fine polisher (one-step, n = 6) or (2) a rough and fine polisher (two-steps, n = 6). The positive
control group (polish-lab-kit, PLK) was sintered and polished in two-steps. The no polished group (NP) acted as negative control
group. Translucency (T%) was measured after white-stage polishing and sintering, and after sintered-stage polishing. Surface free
energy (SFE), surface roughness (SR), and flexural strength (FS) were determined. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA
with Tukey-B post-hoc, t test, and Wilcoxon-test (p < 0.05).
Results FWP, GB, FK, UP, and PP presented decreased T% after one-step, while FWP, GB, GBP, FK, and UP presented
decreased T% following two-steps polishing. FW showed the highest T% after white-stage, one-, and two-steps
polishing. PP presented the lowest SFE. Two-steps polishing resulted in a lower SR for FW, FWP, GB, FK, UP, and
PP and increased FS in all groups.
Conclusions White-stage polishing improved zirconia properties. Two-steps polishing in the sintered stage, especially when
combined with a polishing paste, can decrease SR and increase T% and FS.
Clinical relevance With polishing in the sintered-stage impairing the polishing material and being time consuming, alternatives
such as white-stage polishing should be investigated.

Keywords Zirconia polishing . Translucency . Surface roughness . Surface free energy . Biaxial strength

Introduction
The use of zirconia, an established alternative to metal-
ceramic restorations in prosthetic dentistry, makes it possible
to satisfy growing esthetic demands of patients and enables
treatment with metal-free restorations. The excellent optical
and mechanical properties of zirconia, such as high flexural
strength, wear resistance, and fracture toughness, allow for a
slender restoration design in the circular area near the gingiva
* Felicitas Wiedenmann
Felicitas.wiedenmann@med.uni-muenchen.de
1
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Klinikum der Universität
München, LMU München, Goethestraße 70,
80336 Munich, Germany
and thus require less preparation of the tooth while contribut-
ing to the overall esthetic appearance of the restoration [1–4].
Furthermore, zirconia possesses an excellent biocompatibility
and is not prone to discoloration or chemical corrosion as
observed for other dental materials [5].
Veneered ceramic restorations, consisting of a zirconia
framework and a feldspathic porcelain, are however sus-
ceptible to fractures called chipping, especially on poste-
rior molars [6, 7].
The development of the CAD/CAM technology opened up
the possibility of a monolithic use of zirconia, offering a way
out of the chipping predicament [1, 2]. When employing zir-
conia in a monolithic setting, its surface is in direct contact
with the oral flora and natural antagonist, with clinical factors
such as saliva composition, parafunctions, and patient habits
affecting the material [8]. To avoid abrasion of the natural
antagonist and reduce bacterial adhesion, the microstructure

of the zirconia surface is critical [9–11]. Furthermore, the sur-
face structure influences the transmission, absorption, reflec-
tion, and scattering of light and thus has a major impact on the
optical appearance of the restoration [12].
The threshold surface roughness for using zirconia in the
oral environment is set to 200 nm [13]. This value can only be
achieved by surface treatment, more precisely polishing, after
manufacturing, as zirconia restorations are milled in a pre-
sintered state from a circular blank. With zirconia in the pre-
sintered state having a porous structure coupled with a low
strength and defects such as cracks and microchips developing
in the course of the manufacturing process with carbide cut-
ters, polishing remains an essential step and cannot be elimi-
nated by a subsequent sintering process [13]. A surface treat-
ment can be achieved by either glazing or polishing. While
glazing can seal microcracks, functional stress after oral inser-
tion has been shown to impair the glazing of the occlusal area
over time, resulting in an increased wear of the antagonist [14,
15]. Polishing is thus the preferable treatment option [16, 17].
Various manufacturers offer polishing sets made espe-
cially for zirconia, that usually consist of a two or three
steps set, with polishers being used in stages from rough
(grinding) to fine (high gloss finish). Rotational speeds
ranging from 8000 to 20,000 rotations per minute
(min −1 ) are recommended, with the use of polishing
pastes varying. Different zirconia polishing strategies
have been tested on their composition and resulting sur-
face roughness [18, 19]. While all tested polishing strate-
gies resulted in clinically acceptable results with no dif-
ferences being observed between a 60-s or 120-s
polishing time, achieving a smooth surface depended on
the sequential application of all polishing steps [20, 21].
Polishing in the sintered stage of the zirconia does how-
ever entail a high material wear on the polishing tools,
varying on the system used, and is very time consuming
[3]. Furthermore, sintered-stage polishing can lead to re-
sidual stress on the surface, which in turn might negative-
ly affect the material’s resistance to aging [13]. This leads
to the consideration of a polishing strategy in the pre-
sintered stage: white-stage polishing.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of
the applied white-stage polishing strategies on the me-
chanical and optical properties of zirconia and compare
these with a clinically established two-steps polishing
strategy in the sintered state. In addition, the resulting
mechanical and optical differences were evaluated to de-
termine an optimal polishing strategy. The null hypothe-
ses stated that white-stage polishing has no impact on
translucency, irrespective of the polishing strategy and
that different polishing strategies result in a comparable
translucency after white-stage polishing. Furthermore, ad-
ditional polishing steps in the sintered stage, either one-
step or two-steps protocols, do not affect the translucency
Clin Oral Invest
of white-stage polishing groups and that no differences in
translucency, surface free energy, surface roughness, and
biaxial flexural strength exist between one-step and two-
steps polishing strategies.
Materials and methods
In total, 108 zirconia specimens (Ceramill Zolid HT+,
XY406339G, Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Austria; diame-
ter, 16 mm; height, 1 ± 0.05 mm) were milled (Ceramill
Motion 2, Amann Girrbach) and smoothed with an abra-
sive paper (SiC #1200, Buehler, Lake Bluff, USA). The
specimens were divided into nine groups and named ac-
cording to their polishing strategy (n = 12 per group): (1)
felt wheel (FW), (2) felt wheel and polishing paste
(FWP), (3) goat hair brush (GB), (4) goat hair brush and
polishing paste (GBP), (5) green-state finishing kit (FK),
(6) universal polisher (UP), (7) SiC polishing paper (PP),
and two control groups, namely (8) the polish lab kit
(PLK), and (9) without polishing (NP) group (Fig. 1).
The different polishing protocols that were applied are
shown in Table 1. For all specimens (excluding PLK
and NP), a white-stage polishing protocol was employed
for 3 min with the rotational speed being set to
5000 min −1 . For each polishing step, polishing was
achieved manually with a rotating handpiece (KaVo
EWL K9, KaVo Dental GmbH, Biberach, Germany) by
upward and downward movements, with specimens being
rotated by 90° in regular intervals.
After sintering (LHT 02/16, Nabertherm GmbH,
Bremen, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s in-
structions, translucency (T%) was measured with a barium
sulfate reflectance standard using an UV/Vis spectropho-
tometer (Lambda 35, PerkinElmer LAS, Rodgau,
Germany) with an integrated Ulbricht sphere
(Labspehere, RSA-PE-20, Labsphere). The transmission
measurement was made with the light source D65 at a
wavelength spectrum ranging between 400 and 700 nm
at intervals of 1 nm. Before the individual measurements,
the spectrophotometer was calibrated without specimens
in the light beam. For each measurement, specimens were
fixed in a special holding device in the incident light
beam of the photometer. The reflected and scattered light
was registered by the Ulbricht Sphere, while the barium
sulfate standard was used to reflect all non-linear light
rays passing through the specimens onto the detector.
The transmission value (%) was calculated by integrating
the determined values over the wavelength and referring
to the baseline (transmission value detected without a
specimen). Measurements were performed under optimal
conditions (dimmed light and low humidity).
Clin Oral Invest

Fig. 1 Study design showing the

different polishing strategies

Thereafter, specimens of the groups FW, FWP, GB, GBP,
FK, UP, and PP were further divided into two subgroups each:
(1) six specimens were polished using a fine polisher in a one-
step polishing protocol (Post Wheel Bfine^, Amann Girrbach,
Koblach, Austria), and (2) six specimens were polished using
a rough polisher followed by a fine polisher in a two-steps
polishing procedure (Post Wheel Bmedium^ and Post Wheel
Bfine^, Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Austria). Polishing time
was set to 4 min with a rotational speed of 10,000 min−1.
Specimens in the PLK group were polished for 15 min in a
two-steps polishing protocol with 10,000 min−1. Specimens in
the NP group were not polished, but cleaned by an ultrasonic
treatment for 10 min (ethanol 96% (V/V), Transistor/Ultraschall,
L&R Manufacturing Company, Kearny, NJ, USA).

Table 1 Overview of the used

materials, manufacturers, and Lot. Polishing strategies Abbr. Manufacturer Lot. No.
No.
Felt wheel FW Komet 43223408
Felt wheel and polishing paste FWP Komet; YETI dental 43223408; 3832085.1
Goat hair brush GB Komet 209890
Goat hair brush and polishing paste GBP Komet; YETI dental 209890; 3832085.1
Green-state finishing kit FK Amann Girrbach 817413
Universal polisher UP Amann Girrbach 813541
SiC polishing paper PP Buehler
1) #2000 granularity
2) #4000 granularity
Control groups
Without polishing NP
Polish-lab-kit PLK Amann Girrbach 409177

Subsequently, translucency (T%) was measured again,
this time for all groups using the UV/Vis spectrophotom-
eter (Lambda 35, PerkinElmer LAS, Rodgau, Germany)
as described above.
Furthermore, surface free energy (SFE) and surface
roughness (SR) were determined. For SFE, a contact
angle device (EasyDrop, Krüss, Hamburg, Germany)
with two liquids (distilled water and diiodomethane
( C A S N o . 7 5 - 11 - 6 , S i g m a - A l d r i c h , S t e i n h e i m ,
Germany)) was used. For each test liquid, a drop with
a volume of 0.1 ml was applied on the specimen sur-
face, before the drop shape was captured by a camera
after 5 s. Each specimen was measured three times with
each liquid. The contact angle of each drop was evalu-
ated with the help of DAS 25 software (EasyDrop,
Krüss, Hamburg, Germany), and SFE (in mNM) was
calculated on the Ström database.
For SR, a contact profilometer (Mahr Perthometer SD 26,
Mahr, Göttingen, Germany) was used to protocol a total of six
tracks per specimen, with track length set to 6 mm and track
spacing at 0.25 mm. After three tracks having been recorded,
the specimens were rotated by 90° and a further three tracks
were performed. The average of the six determined values was
calculated and assigned as the SR value Ra (in μm) of the
respective specimen.
Finally, specimens were subjected to biaxial flexural
strength measurements in the universal testing machine 1445
Zwick/Roell (Zwick/Roell, Ulm, Germany). Specimens were
tested in a biaxial flexure jig with a piston on three balls
design. The balls had a diameter of 5.1 mm and were arranged
in an angle of 120° to each other on a circle of 10 mm in
diameter. Loading at 1 mm/min was applied in the center of
the specimen with a 1.6-mm diameter steel rod until fracture
ensued. All measurements were conducted at room tempera-
ture of 23 °C. Biaxial flexural strength was calculated using
the following formula:
σ ¼ −0:2387 P ðX −Y Þ=d 2
with σ: flexural strength (MPa), P: fracture load (N), d: spec-
imen thickness (mm) and the coefficients X and Y:
h i
X ¼ ð1 þ ν Þlnðr2 =r3 Þ2 þ ð1−ν Þ=ðr2 =r3 Þ2
h i
Y ¼ ð1 þ ν Þ 1 þ lnðr1 =r3 Þ2 þ ð1−ν Þðr1 =r3 Þ2
with ν: Poisson’s ratio, r1: bearing ball radius (mm), r2: radius
of piston (mm), r3: specimen radius (mm).
Descriptive statistics and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
were calculated for all measured parameters. Surface and
mechanical properties data were statistically analyzed
using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey-B post hoc
and t test. The Wilcoxon test was used to test the impact
Clin Oral Invest
of the polishing strategies on translucency values. All p-
values below 0.05 were construed as statistically signif-
icant. The software SPSS version 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY,
USA) was used for the statistical analysis.
Results
Several trends were observed for translucency measure-
ments with groups polished in the white stage after
sintering showing significant differences (p < 0.001,
Fig. 2). The highest T% results were observed for groups
FW and FWP, while the lowest values were presented by
PP and the control group NP (p ≤ 0.004). When consider-
ing the different subgroups, FW showed the highest trans-
lucency after both one- and two-steps polishing (Table 2).
When comparing translucency measurements for speci-
mens after white-stage polishing with translucency mea-
surements after polishing in the sintered stage, the groups
FWP (p = 0.028), GB (p = 0.028), FK (p = 0.028), UP
(p = 0.028), and PP (p = 0.046) showed a significant de-
crease in the subgroup (1)—one-step polishing protocol.
Regarding subgroup (2)—two steps polishing protocol,
groups FWP (p = 0.028), GB (p = 0.028), GBP (p =
0.046), FK (p = 0.046), and UP (p = 0.028) presented de-
creased values of T%. No significant differences were
observed within the tested groups regarding one- and
two-steps polishing (p > 0.055).
Regarding surface free energy, the lowest value was
observed for group PP (33.37 ± 1.45 mNm), while NP
presented the highest result (43.50 ± 6.16 mNm). After
one-step polishing, SFE values for NP and FWP were
significantly higher than those in groups FK and PP.
Furthermore, NP showed higher SFE values than the
UP group after two-steps polishing. One-step polishing
resulted in an increase of the SFE value for FWP (p =
0.022) and a decrease for PP (p = 0.016). For all other
groups, one- or two-steps polishing showed no impact
on SFE (p > 0.319).
Surface roughness values ranged between 0.053 and
0.350 μm. One-step polishing resulted in the highest SR
values for groups GB and FW while the lowest value was
observed for PP. For two-steps polishing, the highest values
were found for the control group NP, followed by GBP, FK,
and UP. While both one- and two-steps polishing did not have
an impact on the SR value of the GBP group (p = 0.078), two-
steps polishing resulted in significantly lower SR values when
compared to one-step polishing in all other groups (FW, FWP,
GB, FK, UP, PP; p < 0.01).
Considering biaxial flexural strength, groups showed
significant differences with results ranging from 783 to
1332 MPa (Fig. 3). For one-step polishing, the flexural
strength of the FK group was higher than in the UP,
Clin Oral Invest

Fig. 2 Translucency results for groups polished in the white stage after sintering

GB, and NP groups, while the NP group obtained the control group NP. Two-steps polishing resulted in an in-
overall lowest results for flexural strength. Considering creased flexural strength compared to one-step polishing
the two-steps polishing strategy, the GB group showed for all groups. This increase was significant for the FW
significantly higher flexural strength results than the (p = 0.04), GB (p = 0.011), and GBP group (p = 0.036).

Table 2 Results of the surface investigations subdivided into the subgroups and different polishing strategies

T [%] after SFE [mNm] Ra [μm]

Group Mean ± SD 95% CI Mean ± SD 95% CI Median Min/max

one step FW 40.8 ± 0.56a 40.2; 41.5 39.4 ± 4.52*a,b 34.7; 44.1 0.286a,b,A 0.230/0.454
c,♦
FWP 38.4 ± 0.23 38.1; 38.7 40.9 ± 1.69a,A 39.0;42.7 0.102d,A 0.082/0.160
GB 38.9 ± 0.14b,c,♦ 38.6; 39.1 36.9 ± 2.80a,b 33.9;39.9 0.348a,A 0.293/0.425
GBP 39.3 ± 0.31b 39; 4.7 36.8 ± 1.30a,b 35.4;38.2 0.121d 0.090/0.208
b,♦
FK 39.3 ± 0.31 38.9; 39.7 34.8 ± 3.04b 31.5;38.0 0.282*b,A 0.198/0.291
UP 39.0 ± 0.33b,c,♦ 38.7; 39.4 35.4 ± 2.65a,b 32.6;38.2 0.184c,A 0.153/0.223
PP 39.5 ± 0.27b,♦ 39.2; 39.8 33.4 ± 1.45b,B 31.8;34.9 0.066e,A 0.063/0.071
NP 39.0 ± 0.43*b,c 38.7; 39.4 43.5 ± 6.16a 39.5;47.5 0.258b 0.220/0.333
two steps FW 40.9 ± 0.37a 40.4; 41.3 39.3 ± 1.75a,b 37.3;41.1 0.070c,B 0.062/0.090
FWP 38.2 ± 0.56c,♦ 37.8; 38.5 38.4 ± 1.43a,b,B 36.9;39.9 0.065c,B 0.055/0.089
GB 38.8 ± 0.26b,c,♦ 38.4; 39.1 36.9 ± 1.32a,b 35.5;38.3 0.087c,B 0.049/0.102
GBP 39.0 ± 0.25b,♦ 38.7; 39.3 37.5 ± 1.11a,b 36.3;38.7 0.084b,c 0.068/0.135
FK 39.0 ± 0.25b,♦ 38.7; 39.3 35.9 ± 1.99a,b 33.7;38.0 0.121*b,B 0.116/0.188
UP 39.2 ± 0.42b,♦ 38.7; 39.7 34.2 ± 1.55b 32.5;35.9 0.102b,B 0.070/0.127
PP 39.3 ± 0.25b,♦ 39.0; 39.6 36.3 ± 2.02a,b,A 34.1;38.5 0.053d,B 0.045/0.058
NP 39.0 ± 0.43*b 38.7; 39.4 43.5 ± 6.16a 39.5;47.5 0.258a 0.220/0.333
PLK 38.2 ± 0.25c 38.0; 38.4 39.5 ± 4.56a,b 36.5;42.4 0.065*c 0.053/0.210

*Not normally distributed. ♦ Significant differences of T% before and after polishing stages. a–d Significant differences between polishing groups within
one polishing stage A,B Significant differences between polishing stages within one polishing strategy

Fig. 3 Flexural strength results subdivided into the different subgroups and polishing strategies
Discussion
The analysis of the translucency measurements showed an
influence of white-stage polishing on T% and thus refutes
the null hypothesis, that all white-stage polishing strate-
gies applied in this study lead to similar T% values. While
comparing translucency after white stage-polishing with
translucency after one- and two-steps polishing, a signif-
icant decrease was observed for most groups (FWP, GB,
GBP, FK, UP, and PP). The zirconia surface possesses a
polycrystalline structure, whose opacity intensifies with
an increasing surface roughness due to scattering effects,
thus reducing translucency [6, 22]. An increased surface
roughness might thus lead to a diminished translucency.
SR results for the groups GB, FK, UP, and PP confirm
this assumption. The FW group showed the highest T%
value after white-stage, one-step, and two-steps polishing
in comparison to all other groups. The correlation de-
scribed above cannot be transferred to this polishing strat-
egy group as the FW group also presented a high surface
roughness. Regarding groups FW and FWP as well as GB
and GBP, which were treated without or with a polishing
Clin Oral Invest
paste in direct comparison, it is noteworthy that the
groups employing a polishing paste (FWP and GBP) pre-
sented lower translucency values. The reduced translucen-
cy in these specimens might be traced back to abrasives or
binders in the polishing paste, that were incorporated into
the pre-sintered surface, particularly in pores or defects
such as micro cracks, during the polishing step.
Although it might be assumed that the residues of the
polishing paste and other contaminants such as fragments
from the different polishing wheels or general laboratory
pollutants were driven out and subsequently burned by the
high temperatures of the sintering process, the possibility
that the abrasive particles or binders withstood this pro-
cess and thus impaired translucency remains a feasible
explanation for the results observed. Especially, regarding
the abrasives used in zirconia polishing pastes, such as
diamond, SiC (siliciumcarbide), Al2O3 (alumnia oxide),
or ZrO2 (zirconia) itself due to zirconia’s high Vickers
hardness of roughly 1250 [23], the existence of residue
impairing translucency becomes quite probable as these
materials can easily withstand high sintering temperatures.
Another important parameter affecting translucency is the
Clin Oral Invest
respective specimen’s layer thickness, which might be in-
fluenced by an increased number of polishing steps. An
inverse proportional correlation between material thick-
ness and translucency has been shown [24]. No signifi-
cant differences were observed for the groups regarding
one- and two-steps polishing, and, thus, the use of one or
more polishing steps in the sintered stage does not seem
to influence translucency. Although a correlation between
layer thickness, polishing, and translucency was not ap-
parent in our findings, a possible influence of material
loss on translucency, especially after white-stage
polishing, should be investigated in further studies. In
the present study, translucency was determined using a
transmission measurement. While similar translucency re-
sults for HT+ have been described [24], further examina-
tions such as contrast ratio measurements using reflec-
tance spectrophotometers are warranted to investigate zir-
conia opacity after different polishing protocols and con-
firm the trends observed in this study.
The analysis of surface free energy measurements
showed significant differences between the polishing
strategies and use of varying polishing steps, thus refuting
the null hypothesis. The highest value for SFE was ob-
tained by the control group NP (without polishing), due to
the rough zirconia surface being characterized by the larg-
est surface area. Groups showing the highest SR values
after one-step polishing (FW, GB, FK) also presented
larger standard deviations regarding SFE, which could
be an indication for a larger inhomogeneity of the
polished surface. One-step polishing resulted in a signifi-
cant increase of the SFE value of FWP, indicating that this
polishing step increased surface roughness. On the other
hand, one-step polishing showed a decrease of the SFE
value for PP, suggesting an ensuing decreased surface
roughness. These observations might hint that FWP
achieved a smoother surface than the fine polisher applied
in the sintered stage polishing, while the SiC polishing
paper led to poor initial smoothness.
Looking at surface roughness measurements, several
significant differences were observed. For all groups but
one, two-steps polishing resulted in lower SR values,
which can be logically explained by an additional
polishing step resulting in a smoother surface. In vivo
studies suggest a threshold surface roughness for bacterial
retention of Ra = 0.2 μm, below which no further reduc-
tion of bacterial accumulation can be expected [10]. A
smooth surface is furthermore required to prevent an in-
creased wear of the antagonist [1]. After applying a two-
steps polishing strategy, all groups showed the desired
surface quality with Ra ≤ 0.2 μm. Although white-stage
polishing followed by a high gloss polisher (one-step
polishing) was sufficient to achieve the desired surface
roughness for the FWP, FK, UP, and PP groups, an
additional polishing step (two-steps polishing) allowed
for a significantly smoother surface. When regarding
FW and FWP as well as GB and GBP, which were treated
without or with a polishing paste in direct comparison, a
significant decrease in the SR value for both one-step
polishing and two-steps polishing can be observed for
the groups employing a polishing paste. As the polishing
paste might have been incorporated into the pre-sintered
surface of the FWP and GBP groups as discussed before,
this could lead to a smoothing effect of the surface struc-
ture. Further studies are needed to confirm and expand the
hypothesis concerning SFE and SR.
Regarding the differences in flexural strength observed
within a polishing strategy and between one- and two-
steps polishing, the null hypotheses has to be rejected.
Results varied when comparing the groups in the one- or
two-steps polishing strategy, with either the FK or GB
group achieving the highest flexural strength value.
Nevertheless, the two-steps polishing protocol resulted
in an increased flexural strength regardless of the
polishing strategy used. With an additional polishing step
removing more surface defects and thus achieving a
smoother surface, the strength of the zirconia might be
improved. As a decreased surface roughness does howev-
er impair bonding to the tooth or other dental materials
s u c h a s t i t a n i u m , a ir b o r n e - p a r t i c l e a b r a si o n o r
Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiations are frequently used as a
pre-treatment, which might lead to an increased fracture
risk by micro cracks [3, 4]. Maybe the increased flexural
strength could also be explained by the polymorphic
metastable zirconia undergoing a phase transformation
from the tetragonal into the monoclinic phase under
stress, such as polishing [3, 19, 25]. This transformation
toughening has been observed to lead to higher flexural
strength and might explain the observed results [26].
Further studies are warranted to address these conflicting
aspects in the manufacturing of zirconia.
In conclusion, white-stage polishing was observed to
improve both optical as well as mechanical properties of
zirconia. The observed results should however be noted
with caution, as only one material by one manufacturer,
without color or coloring, was used, and test specimens
milled as a round disc did not correspond to the geometry
of a dental crown. Further clinical studies are necessary to
investigate the influence of a varying polishing pressure
and speed, as well as the influence of white-stage polishing
on the wear of the antagonist, and the aging observed for
zirconia. Furthermore, possible material loss or volume
changes of the zirconia after white-stage polishing should
be investigated. While follow-up studies are needed to ex-
plore to what extent white-stage polishing can be applied
to minimize polishing after sintering, as of today, polishing
after sintering remains an imperative step.

Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. White-stage polishing enhanced both optical as well as
mechanical properties of zirconia.
2. Higher surface roughness as well as the use of polishing
paste was associated with a diminished translucency.
3. A two-steps polishing protocol resulted in a decreased
surface roughness and achieved the desired surface qual-
ity of Ra ≤ 0.2 μm. The use of a polishing paste further-
more reduced the surface roughness.
4. Application of two-steps polishing increased flexural
strength.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Amann Girrbach for
providing the material.
Funding This research was partially supported by research grant
ZF4052004AG (AiF Projekt GmbH, Berlin, Germany, ZIM-
Kooperationsprojekte, Projektträger des BMWi).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human
participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent For this type of study, formal consent was not
required.
References
1. Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Eichberger M, Figge D, Edelhoff D,
Lumkemann N (2017) Three generations of zirconia: from
veneered to monolithic. Part I. Quintessence Int 48:369–380.
https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a38057
2. Nassary Zadeh P, Lumkemann N, Sener B, Eichberger M,
Stawarczyk B (2018) Flexural strength, fracture toughness, and
translucency of cubic/tetragonal zirconia materials. J Prosthet
Dent 120:948–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.12.021
3. Park C, Vang MS, Park SW, Lim HP (2017) Effect of various
polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transforma-
tion of zirconia and the durability of the polishing systems. J
Prosthet Dent 117:430–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.
2016.10.005
4. Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Eichberger M, Figge D, Edelhoff D,
Lumkemann N (2017) Three generations of zirconia: from
veneered to monolithic. Part II. Quintessence Int 48:441–450.
https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a38157
5. Piconi C, Maccauro G (1999) Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial.
Biomaterials 20:1–25
6. Botelho MG, Dangay S, Shih K, Lam WYH (2018) The effect of
surface treatments on dental zirconia: an analysis of biaxial flexural
Clin Oral Invest
strength, surface roughness and phase transformation. J Dent 75:
65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.05.016
7. Heintze SD, Rousson V (2010) Survival of zirconia- and metal-
supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. Int J
Prosthodont 23:493–502
8. Metzler KT, Woody RD, Miller AW 3rd, Miller BH (1999) In vitro
investigation of the wear of human enamel by dental porcelain. J
Prosthet Dent 81:356–364
9. Chavali R, Lin CP, Lawson NC (2017) Evaluation of different
polishing systems and speeds for dental zirconia. J Prosthodont
26:410–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12396
10. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M (1997) Comparison of sur-
face roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface rough-
ness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent
Mater 13:258–269
11. Kozmacs C, Hollmann B, Arnold WH, Naumova E, Piwowarczyk
A (2017) Polishing of monolithic zirconia crowns-results of differ-
ent dental practitioner groups. Dent J (Basel) 5. https://doi.org/10.
3390/dj5040030
12. Shahmiri R, Standard OC, Hart JN, Sorrell CC (2018) Optical
properties of zirconia ceramics for esthetic dental restorations: a
systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 119:36–46. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.009
13. Yin L, Nakanishi Y, Alao AR, Song XF, Abduo J, Zhang Y (2017)
A review of engineered zirconia surfaces in biomedical applica-
tions. Procedia CIRP 65:284–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.
2017.04.057
14. Sabrah AH, Cook NB, Luangruangrong P, Hara AT, Bottino MC
(2013) Full-contour Y-TZP ceramic surface roughness effect on
synthetic hydroxyapatite wear. Dent Mater 29:666–673. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.03.008
15. Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V
(2008) Wear of ceramic and antagonist–a systematic evaluation of
influencing factors in vitro. Dent Mater 24:433–449. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.016
16. Preis V, Behr M, Hahnel S, Handel G, Rosentritt M (2012) In vitro
failure and fracture resistance of veneered and full-contour zirconia
restorations. J Dent 40:921–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.
2012.07.010
17. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO
(2013) The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J
Prosthet Dent 109:22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)
60005-0
18. Hmaidouch R, Muller WD, Lauer HC, Weigl P (2014) Surface
roughness of zirconia for full-contour crowns after clinically simu-
lated grinding and polishing. Int J Oral Sci 6:241–246. https://doi.
org/10.1038/ijos.2014.34
19. Caglar I, Ates SM, Yesil Duymus Z (2018) The effect of various
polishing systems on surface roughness and phase transformation
of monolithic zirconia. J Adv Prosthodont 10:132–137. https://doi.
org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.132
20. Huh YH, Park CJ, Cho LR (2016) Evaluation of various polishing
systems and the phase transformation of monolithic zirconia. J
Prosthet Dent 116:440–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.
2016.01.021
21. Preis V, Grumser K, Schneider-Feyrer S, Behr M, Rosentritt M
(2015) The effectiveness of polishing kits: influence on surface
roughness of zirconia. Int J Prosthodont 28:149–151. https://doi.
org/10.11607/ijp.4153
22. Kim HK, Kim SH, Lee JB, Han JS, Yeo IS (2013) Effect of
polishing and glazing on the color and spectral distribution of
monolithic zirconia. J Adv Prosthodont 5:296–304. https://doi.
org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.3.296
23. Chun KJ, Lee JY (2014) Comparative study of mechanical proper-
ties of dental restorative materials and dental hard tissues in
Clin Oral Invest
compressive loads. J Dent Biomech 5:1758736014555246. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1758736014555246
24. Jansen J, Lümkemann N, Letz I, Pfefferle R, Sener B, Stawarczyk B
(2019) Impact of high-speed sintering on translucency, phase con-
tent, grain sizes, and flexural strength of 3Y-TZP and 4Y-TZP zir-
conia materials. J Prosthet Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.
2019.02.005
25. Ozcan M, Melo RM, Souza RO, Machado JP, Felipe Valandro L,
Botttino MA (2013) Effect of air-particle abrasion protocols on the
biaxial flexural strength, surface characteristics and phase
transformation of zirconia after cyclic loading. J Mech Behav Biomed
Mater 20:19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.005
26. Garvie RN, Nicholson PS (1972) Structure and thermomechanical
properties of partially stabilized zirconia in the CaO-ZrO2 system.
In: J Am Ceram Soc, vol 55, pp 152–157
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.