Search

Objectives: To evaluate gingiva‐colored resin‐based composites' (GCRBC) color stability and degree of conversion (DC%). Methods: Eight discs (8 × 1 mm) of 20 shades of GCRBC were prepared. Color coordinates were measured against a gray background with a calibrated spectroradiometer, CIE D65 illuminant and the CIE 45°/0° geometry at baseline and after 30 days of storage in distilled water, coffee, and red wine. Color differences (∆E00) between final and baseline conditions were calculated. An ATR‐FTIR spectrometer with a diamond tip was used to calculate DC%. The results were analyzed statistically using ANOVA and Tukey post‐hoc test. The level of significance was p < 0.05. Results: DC% and color stability correlated with each other and with the GCRBC brand. DC% ranged between 43% and 96%, highest values correspond to flowable composites. All composites have experienced color changes after immersion in water, wine and coffee. However, the magnitude of the color change has varied widely depending on the immersion medium and the GCRBC. Color changes generated by the wine were, globally, greater than those induced by coffee (p < 0.001) and above the acceptability thresholds. Conclusions: The DC% of GCRBCs is sufficient to achieve adequate biocompatibility and physicomechanical properties, but the high susceptibility to staining could compromise aesthetic long‐term results. Clinical Significance: The degree of conversion and the color stability of gingiva‐colored resin‐based composites correlated with each other. All composites have experienced color changes after immersion in water, wine and coffee. Color changes generated by wine were, globally, greater than those induced by coffee and above the acceptability thresholds that could compromise aesthetic long‐term results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to evaluate color inconstancy of dental ceramics under the white light-emitting diode illuminants recently proposed by the CIE. From spectral reflectance factors of 18 dental ceramics (VST, NSP, and IEC; shades A1, A2, A3, A3.5, B2, and C2), the corresponding colors under illuminant D65 and CIE 1931 Standard Colorimetric Observer were computed for all samples, using the chromatic adaptation transform CIECAT16. CIEDE2000 color differences between dental ceramics illuminated by CIE D65 standard illuminant and different white LED illuminants were calculated. Perceptibility and acceptability thresholds (PT00 and AP00) in dental ceramics were used to analyze color changes. Color gamut size was within the same range for all illuminants and for all ceramics, since MCDM computed values were 4.1–4.4 for VST, 4.0–4.2 for NSP, and 4.3–4.6 for IEC. For all ceramics and shades, the color inconstancies were higher than 50:50% PT00 and, in general, lower than 50:50% AT00. The effect of CIE-proposed LED illuminants on dental ceramic is perceptible and slightly lower than on natural teeth. Dental clinicians should consider these lighting effects on the visual appearance of dental ceramics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate color, lightness, chroma, hue, and translucency adjustment potential of resin composites using CIEDE2000 color difference formula. Methods: Three resin composites (Filtek Universal, Harmonize, and Omnichroma) were tested. Two types of specimens were prepared: an outer base shade with an inner hole filled with test shades and single‐composite specimens of all shades. Spectrorradiometric reflectances measurements and subsequent CIELAB color coordinates and translucency parameter (TP) were performed. Color (CAP00), lightness, chroma, hue, and translucency (TAP00) adjustment potential using CIEDE2000 color difference were computed. Color and transparency differences among composite materials and shades were statistically tested (P < 0.05). Results: Positive CAP00 and TAP00 values were found for majority of tested materials. CAP00 values ranged from −0.14 to 0.89, with the highest values found for Omnichroma (>0.75 in all cases). TAP00 values ranged from −0.06 to 0.86 with significant translucency differences among dual and single specimens. Omnichroma exhibited the highest adjustment potential for all color dimensions studied. Conclusions: Lightness, hue, chroma, and translucency adjustment potential have been introduced using CIEDE2000 color difference formula, and have shown their usefulness to evaluate blending effect in dentistry. Color coordinates and translucency adjustment potential were dependent on dental material. Omnichroma exhibited the most pronounced blending effect. Clinical significance: Resin composites with increased color and translucency adjustment may simplify shade selection, making this process easier and less time consuming. Furthermore, these materials might facilitate challenging and complex color matching situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Modern LED sources produce changes in color and whiteness of natural teeth. • Some LED illuminants recommended by CIE generate perceptible color shifts. • LED illuminants produce color shifts in very different directions of color space. • Color differences for pairs of teeth are almost independent of illuminants. • Whiteness differences for pairs of teeth are almost independent of illuminants. To evaluate color and whiteness changes of natural teeth under nine white LED illuminants recently proposed by CIE. From spectral reflectance factors of 36 caries-free upper central incisors, corresponding colors under illuminant D65 and CIE 1931 standard colorimetric observer were computed for all tested illuminants, using the chromatic adaptation transform CAT16. Color differences (CIELAB and CIEDE2000 units) and whiteness (W I D and W I O indices) from teeth illuminated by CIE standard illuminants (D65 and A) and white LED illuminants were calculated. The appearance of 630 pairs of teeth under all illuminants was also evaluated. Color gamuts from 36 teeth under tested illuminants showed similar volume and shape in CIELAB color space, but their centers of gravity changed in many different directions with respect to colors under D65 or A illuminants: Considering colors under D65/A, color shifts produced by white LED illuminants were in the ranges 2.0–8.6/1.1–7.0 CIELAB units (1.4–8.2/0.6–6.8 CIEDE2000 units). Average W I D and W I O values for the 36 teeth under different illuminants ranged from −5.8 to +19.3 and from −7.7 to +11.1, respectively. Considering 630 pairs of teeth, average color differences (mainly lightness differences) were below 0.5 CIELAB units (0.3 CIEDE2000 units), and average whiteness differences ranged from 8.1 to 10.7 for W I D (23.4–25.1 for W I O). Using CIE LED illuminants, most changes in color and whiteness for individual teeth were above typical threshold values of perceptibility and acceptability in dentistry. However, considering pairs of teeth, the average color and whiteness differences under all tested illuminants were very similar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]