117

Journal of Oral Science, Vol. 58, No. 1, 117-123, 2016

Original

Wear characteristics of polished and glazed lithium disilicate

ceramics opposed to three ceramic materials
Osamu Saiki1), Hiroyasu Koizumi1,2), Nobutaka Akazawa3), Akihisa Kodaira3),
Kentaro Okamura3), and Hideo Matsumura1,2)
1)Departmentof Fixed Prosthodontics, Nihon University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan
2)Division of Advanced Dental Treatment, Dental Research Center, Nihon University School of Dentistry,
Tokyo, Japan
3)Division of Applied Oral Sciences, Nihon University Graduate School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan

(Received November 15, 2015; Accepted December 28, 2015)

Abstract: This study compared the wear charac-
teristics of a heat-pressed lithium disilicate ceramic
material opposed to feldspathic porcelain, a lithium
disilicate glass ceramic, and zirconia materials.
Ceramic plate specimens were prepared from feld-
spathic porcelain (EX-3 nA1B), lithium disilicate
glass ceramics (e.max CAD MO1/C14), and zirconia
(Katana KT 10) and then ground or polished.
Rounded rod specimens were fabricated from heat-
pressed lithium disilicate glass ceramic (e.max press
LT A3) and then glazed or polished. A sliding wear
testing apparatus was used for wear testing. Wear
of glazed rods was greater than that of polished
rods when they were abraded with ground zirconia,
ground porcelain, polished porcelain, or polished
lithium disilicate ceramics. For both glazed and
polished rods, wear was greater when the rods were
abraded with ground plates. The findings indicate
that application of a polished surface rather than a
glazed surface is recommended for single restorations
made of heat-pressed lithium disilicate material. In
addition, care must be taken when polishing opposing
materials, especially those used in occlusal contact
areas. (J Oral Sci 58, 117-123, 2016)
Correspondence to Dr. Hiroyasu Koizumi, Department of Fixed
Prosthodontics, Nihon University School of Dentistry, 1-8-13
Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8310, Japan
Fax: +81-3-3219-8351 E-mail: koizumi.hiroyasu@nihon-u.ac.jp
doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.58.117
DN/JST.JSTAGE/josnusd/58.117
Keywords: glazing; lithium; polishing; wear; XRD;
zirconia.
Introduction
New ceramic materials continue to be introduced for
restorations and fixed dental prostheses (1,2), probably
because of the improved mechanical strength, biocom-
patibility, and esthetics of these materials (3). Occlusal
adjustment of ceramic restorations involves polishing
or glazing ceramic surfaces (4-6). Smoothed ceramic
surfaces prevent excessive wear of opposing teeth and
minimize plaque accumulation (7). The surface rough-
ness of ceramic materials is a critical factor affecting
wear (8-10). In addition, surface roughness of ceramic
materials strongly correlates with wear of opposing
materials (11).
Several studies reported that glazed and polished
ceramic materials do not significantly differ in surface
roughness (6). However, other studies found that wear
of ceramics was greater for materials opposed to glazed
ceramics than for those opposed to polished ones
(12-16). Janyavula et al. reported that material and
antagonist wear was greater for glazed zirconia than for
polished zirconia (13). Lawson et al. reported that wear
of opposing enamel was less for polished than for glazed
lithium disilicate glass (LDG) ceramics (15). Thus, wear
of antagonists appears to be greater for glazed ceramic
materials than for polished ceramic materials.
Few studies have compared the wear characteristics
of ceramic materials and zirconia. The purpose of the
present study was to evaluate wear of a heat-pressed
118

Table 1 Materials assessed

Material / Trade name Manufacturer Lot number Composition (mass%)
Plate specimen
Yttria partially stabilized
Zirconia
Katana KT10 Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Tokyo, Japan Z309849B ZrO2 (94.4), Y2O3 (5.4)
Feldspathic porcelain
EX-3 nA1B Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc. 27687 SiO2, K2O, Al2O3, Na2O, Ba2O, CaO
Lithium disilicate glass
ceramics (LDG ceramics)
e.max CAD MO1 / C14 Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein N16387 SiO2, Li2O, K2O, P2O5, ZrO2, ZnO, Al2O3, MgO
Rod specimen
Heat-pressed lithium disilicate
glass ceramics (HP ceramics)
e.max Press LT A3 Ivockar Vivadent AG P41023 SiO2, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, MgO, Al2O3, CaO, ZrO2, P2O5

Step 1
Ground with SiC abrasive paper #170 - #2,000

Step 2 Vickers
Polished with a wet-felt and diamond suspension hardness
testing

Step 3 (ground surface)

Abraded with diamond rotary cutting instruments

Step 4 (polished surface)

A B C
D Wear testing

A: StarGloss blue, B: StarGloss pink, C: StarGloss

gray, D: Zircon-Brite

Fig. 1   Procedure for producing ceramic plate specimens.

(HP) lithium disilicate ceramic material, after glazing or
polishing, when specimens were abraded with zirconia,
feldspathic porcelain, and LDG ceramic materials.
Materials and Methods
Ceramic plate specimens
The materials investigated are shown in Table 1. Ceramic
plate specimens were prepared from three different
ceramics: yttria-partially-stabilized zirconia (Katana
KT10, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Tokyo, Japan),
feldspathic porcelain (EX-3 nA1B, Kuraray Noritake
Dental), and LDG ceramics (e.max CAD MO1/C14,
Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein).
The ceramic specimens were fabricated into a plate
(18 × 18 × 2 mm). All specimens were ground with a
series of silicon carbide papers (#170 to #2000, Wetordry
Tri-M-ite, 3M Corp., St. Paul, MN, USA), under running
water (Fig. 1, Step 1), and then polished with a wet-felt
cloth (TexMet 1500, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) and
diamond suspension (1 μm, MetaDi, Buehler) (Fig. 1,
Step 2).
The specimens were then divided into two surfaces,
ground or polished. To prepare the ground surface, all plate
specimens were abraded with a coarse diamond rotary
cutting instrument (102R, Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan) with
a friction-grip handpiece (S 200MLX, Yoshida Dental
Mfg. Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) under water coolant. The
handpiece was operated at 200,000 rpm at a constant
pressure of 2.0 N (n = 7) (Fig. 1, Step 3). To prepare the
polished surface, ground specimens were abraded with a
three-step polishing system consisting of diamond grain,
corundum (Al2O3), rutile (TiO2), carborundum (SiC),
and artificial rubber (StarGloss blue/pink/gray, Edenta
AG, Hauptstrasse, Switzerland) and then polished with
a brush made of horse bristles and soft sheep hair and
polishing paste comprising diamond grain, corundum

Stroke width (3.0 mm)
Rod specimen
5.9 N
Ceramic plate
Sliding area
Fig. 2   Illustration of wear testing procedure.
(Al2O3), pumice (SiO2), and wax (Zircon-Brite, Dental
Ventures of America, Corona, CA, USA) (n = 7) (Fig. 1,
Step 4) (17).
Rounded rod specimens
Rounded rod specimens were fabricated with HP LDG
ceramics (HP ceramics; e.max Press LT A3, Ivoclar
Vivadent). The rod specimens were then divided into
two surfaces, glazed or polished. Rod patterns were
fabricated with acrylic rods and globular particles (11).
The rod patterns were invested into a mold material. HP
ceramics were then heat-pressed into the mold, and the
glazed rods were then coated with glaze paste (IPS e.max
Ceram Glaze Paste Fluo, Ivoclar Vivadent) and sintered
according to the manufacturer’s specifications. The
polished rods were prepared by abrading and polishing
with the three-step StarGloss system and Zircon-Brite
polishing system. Seven glazed and seven polished rod
specimens were prepared.
Vickers hardness testing
Three ceramic plate specimens and two HP ceramic spec-
imens (18 × 18 × 2 mm) were used to determine Vickers
hardness number (Hv, VHN) (n = 7). The specimens for
hardness testing were polished in the same manner as
the plate specimens (Fig. 1, Step 2). Glazed HP ceramic
specimens were coated with glazing paste and sintered
according to the manufacturer’s specifications. An
optical microhardness tester (HMV-1, Shimadzu Corp.,
Kyoto, Japan) was used for Vickers hardness testing. The
indenter was used to press six areas of each specimen for
15 s at a microforce load of 9.8 N (as specified in ISO
6507:2005). The mean of six replications was recorded
as the Hv value of the individual specimen.
119
Diameter of worn point (r)
Height loss of rod specimen (h)
Fig. 3   Formula for calculating height loss in a rod specimen.
Surface roughness (Ra)
The surface roughness (Ra) of the three ceramic plates
was determined by using a hybrid measuring instrument
for surface roughness and contour measurement (Surfcom
1400A, Tokyo Seimitsu Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Five
measurements of each specimen were performed parallel
to the movement of the wear testing device (n = 7).
Wear testing
A three-body wear test was performed using a plate
specimen, a rod specimen, and slurry composed of
equivalent weights of reagent grade glycerol (99%,
Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd., Osaka, Japan) and
poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) spherical particles
(Acron, GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan). The specimen was
mounted to the sliding wear testing apparatus (K-317,
Tokyo Giken Inc., Tokyo, Japan). As shown in Fig. 2,
each rod specimen moved back and forth on the plate
specimen over a distance of 3 mm for 5,000 cycles at a
cycle of 1 Hz and with a vertical load of 5.9 N (12,18,19).
After 5000 cycles, the diameter (in µm) of the worn
point was measured using a scanning laser microscope
(1LM21W, Lasertec, Yokohama, Japan), and the height
loss of the rod specimen was calculated (Fig. 3). Selected
specimens were sputter-coated with osmium under
reduced pressure (HPC-1SW Osmium Coater, Vacuum
Device Co. Ltd., Mito, Japan). The worn surface of the
rods was observed with a scanning electron microscope
(S-4300, Hitachi High-Technologies Corp., Tokyo,
Japan) with an accelerating voltage of 15 kV.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis
HP ceramic specimens were manufactured into a plate
for XRD analysis. The specimens for XRD analysis
120

(µm)
i
(A) (µm) (B) (µm) (C)
60 60 60
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Median, IQR Median, IQR Median, IQR
40 40 40 m
k m
j l
20 20 20
42.0 (10.5) 20.7 (2.5) 24.4 (4.3) 19.5 (3.7) 27.2 (6.8) 23.9 (5.4)
36.3, 21.6 21.1, 4.5 22.6, 8.6 20.7, 5.2 25.7, 11.6 21.1, 10.7
glazed polished glazed polished glazed polished

(µm)
Mean (SD) (D) (µm)
o
Mean (SD) (E) (µm)
q
Mean (SD) (F)
Median, IQR Median, IQR Median, IQR
12 n 12 p 12
r
n
8 8 8

4 4 4
7.9 (2.0) 6.1 (1.5) 11.6 (1.2) 8.5 (1.5) 11.2 (1.8) 8.3 (1.7)
7.5, 3.2 5.3, 2.1 11.1, 2.5 8.9, 2.5 11.4, 3.9 8.2, 2.3
glazed polished glazed polished glazed polished

Fig. 4   Height loss for glazed and polished rod specimens abraded with (A) ground
zirconia, (B) ground porcelain, (C) ground LDG ceramics, (D) polished zirconia, (E)
polished porcelain, and (F) polished LDG ceramics.

were polished in the same manner as the plate specimens
(Fig. 1, Step 2). Glazed HP ceramic specimens were
coated with a glazing paste and sintered according to the
manufacturer’s specifications. The chemical composi-
tion and crystalline phases of each HP ceramic specimen
were identified by an XRD instrument (MiniFlex II,
Rigaku, Tokyo, Japan) operated at 15 A and 30 kV with
Cu Kα radiation. Diffraction data were collected in a 2θ
range (3-110°) at 0.02°/min. Data were collected using
a scintillation counter and a graphite diffracted-beam
monochromator.
Statistical analysis
The results were analyzed by statistical software (SPSS
Ver. 19, IBM, Somers, NY, USA). When the results exhib-
ited a normal distribution, the results were analyzed using
the Levene test for equality of variances afterward. When
the Levene test results did not exhibit equality of vari-
ances for at least one category, the results were analyzed
with the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. On the basis
of the Kruskal-Wallis test results, the Steel-Dwass test
for multiple comparisons (Kyplot 5.0, KyensLab Inc.,
Tokyo, Japan) was used to compare differences between
the Vickers hardness number and surface roughness of the
plate. The difference in height loss between the polished
rod and glazed rod on each surface texture ceramic plate
was analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test (SPSS). The
significance level was set at α = 0.05.
Results
Vickers hardness (Hv)
The results of Vickers hardness testing are shown in Table
2. Zirconia had the highest median Vickers hardness
number (Hv) (1,496.0, category a), followed by LDG
ceramics and polished HP ceramics (622.0 and 607.0,
category b) and by glazed HP ceramics and porcelain
(574.0 and 556.0, category c).
Surface roughness (Ra)
Surface roughness (Ra) values are shown in Table 3.
Among the ground plates, LDG ceramics exhibited
the greatest median Ra values (2.55 μm; category d),
followed by porcelain (1.92 μm, category e) and zirconia
(1.25 μm; category f). Among the polished plates, Ra was
lower for zirconia (0.25 μm, category h) than for LDG
ceramics and porcelain (0.44 and 0.40 μm, respectively,
category g).
Wear testing
Height loss after wear testing of glazed and polished HP
ceramic rods is shown in Fig. 4. Height loss of glazed
HP ceramic rods was greater than that of polished rods
when they were abraded with ground zirconia (Fig. 4A),
ground porcelain (Fig. 4B), polished porcelain (Fig.
4E), or polished LDG ceramics (Fig. 4F). Height loss of
glazed and polished HP ceramic rods did not significantly
differ, however, when they were abraded with ground
LDG ceramics (Fig. 4C) or polished zirconia (Fig. 4D).
For both glazed and polished HP ceramic rods, height
loss significantly differed when they were abraded with
ground plates.
Scanning electron microscopic observation
Worn surfaces of HP ceramic rod specimens abraded with
 121

A B C A B C

D E F D E F

Fig. 5   Worn surfaces of polished HP ceramic rods abraded with
(A) ground zirconia, (B) ground LDG ceramics, and (C) ground
porcelain, and glazed HP ceramic rods abraded with (D) ground
zirconia, (E) ground LDG ceramics, and (F) ground porcelain
(original magnification, ×50).
Fig. 6   Worn surfaces of polished HP ceramic rods abraded
with (A) polished zirconia, (B) polished LDG ceramics, and (C)
polished porcelain, and glazed HP ceramic rods abraded with (D)
polished zirconia, (E) polished LDG ceramics, and (F) polished
porcelain (original magnification, ×50).

4000

A B 3500
polished
3000

2500
: Lithium silicate
W 2000
: Silicon dioxide
1500

W 1000
Intensity (CPS)

500

0
750

glazed : Lithium silicate

Fig. 7   Representative worn surfaces of (A) glazed and (B) 500 : Silicon dioxide
polished HP ceramic rods abraded with ground LDG ceramics
(original magnification, ×400). W: worn surface. 250

The white arrow shows a pore.

0
3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 57 63 69 75 81 87 93 99 105

Diffraction angle, 2θ

Fig. 8   XRD patterns for polished and glazed HP ceramics.

ground ceramic plates are shown in Fig. 5, and worn rod
surfaces abraded with polished ceramic plates are shown
in Fig. 6. Wear of rod specimens abraded with ground
ceramic materials was distinct (Fig. 5). Scratches on the
worn surfaces were not remarkable for rod specimens
abraded with polished plates (Fig. 6). Figure 7 shows
representative worn surfaces for glazed and polished rods
abraded with ground LDG ceramics. Multiple spherical
voids were present in the worn surface of glazed rods
(Fig. 7A).
XRD analysis
Figure 8 shows the X-ray diffractograms for polished
HP and glazed HP ceramics. Lithium silicate and
silicon dioxide were detected in both materials. Lithium
silicate was observed as the main crystalline phase for
the polished HP ceramics. The intensities of the three
highest peaks (23.8°, 24.4°, and 24.9°) represent the
crystallographic planes of lithium silicate. The glazed HP
ceramics, in which the 2θ scale ranges from 13° to 38°,
shows a widely distributed “hump”, which represents the
amorphous phase (20).
Discussion
Polished and glazed ceramic surfaces are smooth, prevent
excessive wear of opposing teeth, and minimize plaque
retention (7). Previous studies found that the texture
of ceramic surfaces affects wear of opposing materials
(13-16). The present study compared wear of standard-
ized polished and glazed rod specimens.
Vickers hardness was measured for three ceramic
plates and two rod specimens. Zirconia had the highest
value, and polished HP ceramics were significantly
harder than glazed HP ceramics (Table 2), as was the
case in previous studies (4,11). In 1998, al-Wahadni and
Martin reported that the mechanical strength of polished
ceramics was greater than that of glazed ceramics (4).
The glazing procedure produces multiple voids, which
are believed to negatively affect the physical properties
of ceramic materials.
122

Table 2 Vickers hardness number (Hv) of the ceramic specimens

Vickers hardness number (Hv)
Mean (SD) Median IQR Statistical category
Zirconia 1,458.1 (32.0) 1,496.0 63.0 a
LDG ceramics 628.1 (31.0) 622.0 43.0 b
Polished HP ceramics 608.3 (7.7) 607.0 11.0 b
Glazed HP ceramics 572.4 (6.5) 574.0 11.0 c
Porcelain 560.9 (15.9) 556.0 26.0 c
n = 7; SD, Standard deviation; IQR, Interquartile range; Statistical category, Identical letters indicate that
the values are not statistically different (P > 0.05).

Table 3 Surface roughness (Ra)

Surface roughness (Ra) (μm)
Mean (SD) Median IQR Statistical category
Ground surface
LDG ceramics 2.61 (0.20) 2.55 0.28 d
Porcelain 1.93 (0.07) 1.92 0.09 e
Zirconia 1.36 (0.25) 1.25 0.44 f

Polished surface
LDG ceramics 0.45 (0.05) 0.44 0.11 g
Porcelain 0.40 (0.06) 0.40 0.13 g
Zirconia 0.26 (0.03) 0.25 0.05 h
n = 7; SD, Standard deviation; IQR, Interquartile range; Statistical category, Identical letters indicate that
the values are not statistically different (P > 0.05).

Surface roughness was determined for ground and Acknowledgments

polished ceramic plates. For both surfaces, zirconia had
the smoothest surface (Table 3), probably because of
its high hardness number (Table 2) and the difficulty of
cutting zirconia with diamond rotary instruments.
Wear was greater for glazed HP ceramics than for
polished HP ceramics in four groups (Fig. 4A, B, E, and F).
XRD revealed a glassy structure for glazed HP ceramics
and a crystalline structure for polished HP ceramics (Fig.
8). Previous studies reported that a glassy matrix was not
particularly wear resistant (7,8,15). Furthermore, in the
present study the Vickers hardness number was lower for
glazed HP ceramics than for polished HP ceramics (Table
2). These findings suggest that the mechanical properties
of glazed amorphous and porous ceramic surfaces are
inferior to those of polished crystalline ceramic surfaces.
Thus, glazed ceramics wear more easily as compared
with polished ceramics.
Within the limitations of the present experimental
setting, it can be concluded that use of polished surfaces
rather than glazed surfaces is recommended for single
restorations made of HP lithium disilicate material. In
addition, care must be taken when polishing ceramic
materials, especially those used for areas of occlusal
contact.
This study was supported in part by a grant from the Dental
Research Center, Nihon University School of Dentistry (2015).
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has any conflict of interest regarding this
article.
References
1. Christensen RP, Ploeger BJ (2010) A clinical comparison
of zirconia, metal and alumina fixed-prosthesis frameworks
veneered with layered or pressed ceramic: a three-year report.
J Am Dent Assoc 141, 1317-1329.
2. Mundhe K, Jain V, Pruthi G, Shah N (2015) Clinical study to
evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and
metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 114, 358-363.
3. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ (2007) Current ceramic
materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a
systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 98, 389-404.
4. al-Wahadni A, Martin DM (1998) Glazing and finishing
dental porcelain: a literature review. J Can Dent Assoc 64,
580-583.
5. Sarac D, Sarac YS, Yuzbasioglu E, Bal S (2006) The effects of
porcelain polishing systems on the color and surface texture
of feldspathic porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 96, 122-128.
6. Sarikaya I, Güler AU (2010) Effects of different polishing
techniques on the surface roughness of dental porcelains. J

Appl Oral Sci 18, 10-16.
7. Jagger DC, Harrison A (1994) An in vitro investigation into
the wear effects of unglazed, glazed, and polished porcelain
on human enamel. J Prosthet Dent 72, 320-323.
8. Oh WS, Delong R, Anusavice KJ (2002) Factors affecting
enamel and ceramic wear: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent
87, 451-459.
9. Preis V, Behr M, Handel G, Schneider-Feyrer S, Hahnel S,
Rosentritt M (2012) Wear performance of dental ceramics
after grinding and polishing treatments. J Mech Behav
Biomed Mater 10, 13-22.
10. Luangruangrong P, Cook NB, Sabrah AH, Hara AT, Bottino
MC (2014) Influence of full-contour zirconia surface rough-
ness on wear of glass-ceramics. J Prosthodont 23, 198-205.
11. Saiki O, Koizumi H, Nogawa H, Hiraba H, Akazawa N,
Matsumura H (2014) Influence of ceramic surface texture on
the wear of gold alloy and heat-pressed ceramics. Dent Mater
J 33, 865-873.
12. Preis V, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Hahnel S, Handel G, Rosentritt
M (2011) Wear performance of substructure ceramics and
veneering porcelains. Dent Mater 27, 796-804.
13. Burgess JO, Janyavula S, Lawson NC, Lucas TJ, Cakir D
(2014) Enamel wear opposing polished and aged zirconia.
Oper Dent 39, 189-194.
123
14. 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.
15. Lawson NC, Janyavula S, Syklawer S, McLaren EA, Burgess
JO (2014) Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium
disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent 42,
1586-1591.
16. Lee A, Swain M, He L, Lyons K (2014) Wear behavior of
human enamel against lithium disilicate glass ceramic and
type III gold. J Prosthet Dent 112, 1399-1405.
17. Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi
T (2013) Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont
Res 57, 236-261.
18. Ogino T, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, Murakami M, Matsumura
H, Tanoue N (2007) Effect of a metal priming agent on wear
resistance of gold alloy-indirect composite joint. Dent Mater
J 26, 201-208.
19. Hirata M, Koizumi H, Tanoue N, Ogino T, Murakami M,
Matsumura H (2011) Influence of laboratory light sources on
the wear characteristics of indirect composites. Dent Mater J
30, 127-135.
20. Lien W, Roberts HW, Platt JA, Vandewalle KS, Hill TJ, Chu
TM (2015) Microstructural evolution and physical behavior
of a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. Dent Mater 31, 928-940.