Aims and objectives: New techniques are being developed to invent zirconia with high translucency and better esthetics leading to the development of several brands of monolithic zirconia. The aim of this study is to compare the translucency of three brands of zirconia available for the fabrication of monolithic restorations.
Materials and methods: An in vitro study was designed to compare the translucency of three brands of zirconia available for the fabrication of monolithic restorations: Zirlux Zirconia (Vivadent Ivoclar), Zenostar Zr Translucent Zirconia (Weiland), and BruxZir Zirconia (Glidewell). All specimens were prepared to 0.5 mm thickness. Thirty zirconia specimens from each material were finished and polished. After drying, specimens were fired according to the manufacturers' recommendations. A spectrophotometer (Color i5) was used for the translucency test. Each specimen was presented at the view port permitting the light to hit the center of the specimen. Results were saved into the software until all measurements were completed. The data were then transferred to an Excel sheet where translucency parameters were calculated. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and the post hoc Bonferroni test were performed to analyze the results.
Results: The one-way ANOVA test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups. This study showed lower translucency of BruxZir in comparison to Zenostar and Zirlux when tested under standardized conditions.
Conclusion: There is a statistically significant difference in the translucency between the different brands of zirconia available for monolithic restoration fabrication.
Clinical significance: Different brands of zirconia have different degrees of translucency. Material selection should be customized in each case.
Keywords: Monolithic; Translucency Zirconia..