Aim: To evaluate and compare the translucency of various commercially available zirconium oxide ceramic systems, i.e., Ceramill® Zolid Classic, Ceramill® Zi, and DD Bio ZX271 by using a dual beam UV-visible spectrophotometer.
Materials and methods: The present study comprised of 21 disk-shaped samples of zirconia for every group, i.e., group I-Ceramill® Zolid Classic, group II-Ceramill Zi®, and group III-DD Bio ZX271. Furthermore, each group was split into three subgroups and every subgroup had seven samples each one of 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 mm thickness. The samples were prepared by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system devised by Amann Girrbach AG in accord with the steps provided by the manufacturer. The entire sample was designed having 10 mm in diameter with 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 mm thickness for every group. The UV-visible dual beam spectrophotometer equipped with D2 lamp and W lamp was used for the measurement of absorbance and transmittance in order to assess the translucency of the fabricated zirconia samples.
Results: The mean value of transmittance % for Ceramill® Zi at 0.8 mm came out to be 0.849 ± 0.024, i.e., the least among all, whereas the mean value of Ceramill® Zolid Classic was 1.408 ± 0.033, being the highest for the same thickness. DD Bio ZX271 had an intermediate value of 1.274 ± 0.012. The mean value of absorbance for Ceramill® Zi at 0.8 mm came out to be 2.086 ± 0.013, i.e., the maximum among all, whereas the mean value of Ceramill® Zolid Classic was, being the lowest for the same thickness. DD Bio ZX271 had an intermediate value of 1.902 ± 0.004.
Conclusion: The present study data suggest that all the materials subjected to evaluation exhibited a substantial translucency. We attempted to study few of the desirable properties, these materials should possess when used for prosthetic rehabilitation with esthetic contentment a clinical setup. There has been an ambiguous distinction that Ceramill® Zi Zirconia supersedes the Ceramill® Zolid Classic and DD Bio ZX271. Furthermore, 0.8 mm thickness substantiates to be the most ideal among 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 mm.
Clinical significance: The desired outcome of the procedure becomes dependent solely on the clinician's judgment to opt for the material whose properties are most fitting as per the demands of the esthetics. While a clinician should always be ambitious, but a good clinician should also bear in mind that the success of any treatment procedure not only depends on the assortment of properties of these materials but also the host response and satisfaction evoked by these materials.