Abstract: Objective　To compare the effects of five common polishing methods on the surface roughness of IPS e.max Press glass ceramics after polishing. Methods　Totally 30 IPS e.max Press glass-ceramic specimens were randomly divided into 6 groups（5 in each group）. They were the control group（conventional glaze），sand group（green silicon carbide sand + alumina white sand mixed polishing），Songfeng group（Ceramaster fine sand polishing ），EVE group（EVE zirconia sand polishing），Daobang group（Daobang elastic porcelain sand polishing）and 3M group（3M Sof-LexTM polishing set）. The surface of the polished specimens was polished in turn according to different overall polishing methods after the conventional adjustment of grinding. The surface polishing morphology of the polished specimens was observed under scanning electron microscope，and the surface polishing roughness Ra value of each group of polished specimens was detected. Results    Under the scanning electron microscope，the surface of the specimens in 3M group and Daobang group was smoother，with fewer scratches，which was similar to the control group；the sand group and Songfeng group specimens had obvious scratches on the surface with obvious dents. EVE group had fewer scratches and the scratch stripes were flatter and in the same direction，and a few dents were more obvious than the control group. The surface roughness Ra values of the specimens after polishing in the groups from small to large were as follows：3M group ［（0.207 ± 0.016）μm］，control group［（0.208 ± 0.015）μm］，Daobang group［（0.216 ± 0.025）μm］，EVE group ［（0.315 ± 0.017）μm］，Songfeng group ［（0.375 ± 0.030）μm］，sand group［（0.379 ± 0.017）μm］. The Ra values of Sand group，Songfeng group and EVE group were significantly greater than those of the control group（all P < 0.05），while the differences between 3M group，Daobang group and the control group were not statistically significant（P > 0.05）. Conclusion　The five polishing methods can effectively improve the surface roughness of glass ceramics. Different polishing methods have certain differences in the polishing effect on IPS e.max Press glass ceramics. The 3M Sof-LexTM polishing set has better polishing effect.

Key words: polishing, IPS e.max Press glass ceramic, surface roughness

摘要： 目的    比较临床上5种常用抛光方法对IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷调磨后表面粗糙度的影响。方法    选取临床常用修复材料IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷制作试件30个，随机分成6组（每组5个试件），分别为对照组（常规上釉）、砂石组（绿色碳化硅砂石+氧化铝白砂石依次混合打磨抛光）、松风组（松风Ceramaster精细烤瓷砂石抛光）、EVE组（EVE氧化锆砂石抛光）、道邦组（道邦弹性瓷砂石抛光）、3M组（3M Sof-LexTM抛光套装）。常规调磨后按照各自不同的整体抛光打磨方法分别对试件表面依次进行抛光，扫描电镜下观察各组抛光后试件的表面形态，检测各组抛光后试件的表面粗糙度Ra值。结果　扫描电镜下观察可见3M组和道邦组抛光后试件表面较为平整光滑，划痕较少，与对照组类似；而砂石组和松风组试件表面划痕明显并伴有明显的凹坑；EVE组划痕较少且划痕条纹较平整，方向一致，有少许凹痕较对照组明显。各组抛光后试件的表面粗糙度Ra值由小到大顺序排列为：3M组［（0.207 ± 0.016）μm］、对照组［（0.208 ± 0.015）μm］、道邦组［（0.216 ± 0.025）μm］、EVE组［（0.315 ± 0.017）μm］、松风组［（0.375 ± 0.030）μm］、砂石组［（0.379 ± 0.017）μm］；砂石组、松风组、EVE组Ra值均明显大于对照组（均P < 0.05），而3M组、道邦组与对照组之间的差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。结论　5种抛光方法均能有效改善玻璃陶瓷表面粗糙度，不同抛光方法对IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷的抛光效果有一定的差异，以3M Sof-LexTM抛光套装抛光效果较佳。

关键词: 抛光, IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷, 表面粗糙度