Search

Introduction/Objective. The objective of this study was to perform colorimetric comparison between two shade guides used for visual tooth whitening monitoring. Methods. VITA Bleachedguide 3D-Master (BG) and value scale of VITA classical A1–D4 (VC) were evaluated (n = 3) using a non-contact spectroradiometer. Ranges, distribution, and correlation among color parameters were evaluated using CIEDE2000 color difference formula. In addition, optimized whiteness index for dentistry (WID), and Yellowness Index E313 (YI) were analyzed. ANOVA and Fisher’s PLSD test at a 0.05 level of significance were used in statistical analysis. Results. The lightness (L’), chroma (C’), and hue (h’) ranges for BG were 20.4, 25.9, and 19.1, respectively. The corresponding ranges for VC were 15.3, 10.9, and 20.6. R2 values for individual color coordinate/tab arrangement were higher for BG than VC. The same is true for R2 values of pairs of color coordinates for BG/VC: L’C’ = 0.89/0.33, L’h’ = 0.88/0.53, and C’h’ = 0.70/0.51. BG also exhibited better agreement between the manufacturer’s tab arrangement with ΔE’, WID and YI. The ΔE’ between the lightest and the darkest BG and VC tab were 20.6 and 13.2, respectively. The average ΔE’ among the adjacent tabs were 1.9 (0.5) for BG (corresponding to two shade guide units, SGU) and 3.0 (1.0) for VC (1 SGU). Conclusion. VITA Bleachedguide 3D-Master exhibited wider L’, C’, ΔE’, WID, and YI ranges compared to value scale of VITA classical A1–D4 shade guide and better distribution of evaluated color parameters. This, along with the presence of several shades lighter than B1 of VC, recommends the use of BG for visual evaluation of tooth whitening efficacy.

Purpose: To evaluate staining- and aging-dependent changes in the color and translucency of 3D-printed resin-modified ceramics (RMC). Methods: Specimens (n= 5 per condition and material) were fabricated from test materials: Permanent Crown Resin (PCR), Crowntec (CT), Vita Enamic (VE) and Tetric CAD (TC). Specimens were stained in wine, coffee, tea, and water (control) and exposed to artificial accelerated aging (AAA). Color measurements were obtained using a spectrophotometer at baseline (T0) and at 3.5 (Tl) and 7 (T2) days after immersion. For AAA, measurements were obtained at baseline (T0) and after exposure to controlled irradiance of 150 kJ/m² (T1) and 300 kJ/m² (T2). Mean and standard deviations were calculated on CIEDE2000 color differences (ΔE00), translucency parameter (TP00) and treatment-dependent changes in the translucency parameter (ΔTP00). Differences between materials and test conditions were tested by one-way ANOVA (a== 0.05). Results were additionally interpreted using visual color difference thresholds in dentistry ΔE00= 0.8 for the 50:50 perceptibility threshold (PT) and ΔE00= 1.8 for the 50:50 acceptability threshold CAT). ΔTP00 values were interpreted using 50:50 TPT00= 0.6 and 50:50% TAT00= 2.6. Results: Statistically significant differences were found among the materials when exposed to the different test conditions. At the T0-Tl time interval. the highest color difference was found with wine (0.1-2.2) on all materials except CT, which showed the highest ΔE00 with AAA (2.5). The second highest color differences were obtained upon exposure to AAA (0.2-2.5) and tea (0.5-1.1). The TP00 at baseline ranged from 5.1 to 9.8. Significant differences in ΔTP00 were found among the tested materials and staining/aging conditions, but no significant differences were found among the staining/aging intervals (T0-T1, T0-T2 and T1 -T2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the instrumental and visual color adjustment potential (CAP‐I, CAP‐V), of resin composites. Methods: Resin composites tested were Omnichroma, Filtek Supreme Ultra, TPH Spectra, Herculite Ultra, and Tetric EvoCeram. Two types of specimens, "dual" and "single" were evaluated. For dual specimens, class I preparations (4 mm‐diameter, 2 mm‐depth), were created in denture teeth and restored with test resin composites. For single specimens, replications of denture teeth were created using the test resin composites (n = 5) and compared with unrestored denture teeth. Reflectance values were obtained using a spectroradiometer. CAP‐I and CAP‐V were calculated. Fisher PLSD intervals for comparison of means were calculated at the 0.05 level of significance. Results: CAP‐I ranged between 0.02 and 0.67. The Fisher PLSD interval for comparisons between single/dual color differences was 0.09 (P < .0001, power 1.0) and for comparisons between materials and shades 0.18 and 0.33, respectively (P < .0001, power 1.0). CAP‐V ranged between 0.16 and 0.60. The Fisher PLSD interval for comparisons between single/dual visual color differences was 0.05 (P < .0001, power 1.0) and 0.08 and 0.14 for comparisons between materials and shades, respectively (P < .0001, except Herculite Ultra‐Tetric EvoCeram and certain shade pairs). Conclusions: Instrumental color differences and visual rating of single specimens were the greatest for Omnichroma, indicating the largest mismatch, while the instrumental and visual color differences of dual specimens were the smallest. Omnichroma had the most pronounced CAP‐I followed by Tetric EvoCeram>TPH Spectra = Filtek Supreme Ultra >Herculite Ultra. Similarly, Omnichroma exhibited the most pronounced CAP‐V followed by Tetric EvoCeram>TPH Spectra = Herculite Ultra = Filtek Supreme Ultra. Clinical significance: Resin composites with pronounced CAP blends with surrounding enamel and dentin, resulting in reduced color differences and therefore improving the esthetic appearance of the restoration, simplifying the shade matching and compensating for any color mismatch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]