Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.53(2) > 1034820

Kim and Kahm: Translucency of ceramic veneers on glazing effect

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the translucency of two different laminate ceramic veneers with and without glazing.

Materials and methods

Ten millimeter side square-shaped specimens in 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm thick were fabricated for the following materials with and without glazing (n=80): A1 shade IPS e.maxPress (IEM) and Styleveneers (STV). The color coordinates (CIE L∗ a∗ b∗) of the specimens were measured with a colorimeter. The Translucency parameter (TP) was calculated from the color difference of the material on a black versus a white background. For comparisons between materials and between the ‘not glazed’ and ‘glazed’ groups, unpaired t-test was used to analyze the data (P=.05).

Results

The TP (Mean ± SD) of ‘not-glazed’ and ‘glazed’ group of IEM specimens at 0.3 mm thickness were 45.99 ± 3.00 and 49.53± 2.28 and the TP at 0.6 mm thickness were 32.82 ± 2.59 and 43.02±0.98, respectively. Likewise, the TP of ‘ not-glazed’ and ‘ glazed’ group of STV specimens at 0.3 mm thickness were 47.03 ± 3.65 and 50.95 ± 3.05 and the TP at 0.6 mm thickness group were 34.48 ± 1.28 and 43.39 ± 1.20, respectively. As the glazing of ceramicveneer differed, the TP of each ceramic veneer showed statistically significant difference. But, the result between the products was not statistically different.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, we are concluded that the glazing process changed translucency of laminate ceramic veneers and the TP would not be affected by products.

REFERENCES

1. Joiner A. Tooth colour: a review of the literature. J Dent. 2004; 32:3–12.
crossref
2. Yilmaz K, Gonuldas F, Ozturk C. The effect of repeated firings on the color change of dental ceramics using different glazing methods. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014; 6:427–33.
crossref
3. Barizon KT, Bergeron C, Vargas MA, Qian F, Cobb DS, Gratton DG, Geraldeli S. Ceramic materials for porcelain veneers: part II. Effect of material, shade, and thickness on translucency. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:864–70.
crossref
4. Yilmaz C, Korkmaz T, Demirkö prü lü H, Ergü n G, Ozkan Y. Color stability of glazed and polished dental porcelains. J Prosthodont. 2008; 17:20–4.
5. Wiskott HWA. Fixed prosthodontics: principles and clinics. London: Quintessence publishing Co. Ltd;2011. p. 670–1.
6. Choi BB, Woo YH. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed.Seoul: Jisung;2003. p. 645.
7. Chu FC, Chow TW, Chai J. Contrast ratios and masking abili-ty of three types of ceramic veneers. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98:359–64.
crossref
8. Baek KW, Kim SJ. Thickness and translucency of opaque shade composite resin for masking effect. J Korean Dent Assoc. 2011; 49:203–10.
9. Sinmazisik G, Demirbas B, Tarcin B. Influence of dentin and core porcelain thickness on the color of fully sintered zirconia ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111:142–9.
crossref
10. Heffernan MJ, Aquilino SA, Diaz-Arnold AM, Haselton DR, Stanford CM, Vargas MA. Relative translucency of six all-ceramic systems. Part II: core and veneer materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88:10–5.
crossref
11. Spear F, Holloway J. Which all-ceramic system is optimal for anterior esthetics? J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139:19S–24S.
crossref
12. Obregon A, Goodkind RJ, Schwabacher WB. Effects of opaque and porcelain surface texture on the color of ceramometal restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 46:330–40.
crossref
13. British standard specification for dental porcelains for jacket crowns. BS5612. London: British Standard Institution;1978.
14. Johnston WM, Ma T, Kienle BH. Translucency parameter of colorants for maxillofacial prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 1995; 8:79–86.
15. Ryu SY, Lim JH, Cho IH. A study on the color stability of porcelain for porcelain fused to metal crown. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2000; 38:73–84.
16. Chung IS, Lee DC. Effect of surface treatments and glazing temperatures on bond strength and color reproducibility in titanium-ceramic prosthesis. J Korea Content Assoc. 2010; 10:243–50.
crossref
17. Kelly JR. Dental ceramics: what is this stuff anyway? J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139:4S–7S.
18. Etman MK. Confocal examination of subsurface cracking in ceramic materials. J Prosthodont. 2009; 18:550–9.
crossref
19. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part I. Pressable and alumina glass-infiltrated ceramics. Dent Mater. 2004; 20:441–8.
crossref
20. Cattell MJ, Knowles JC, Clarke RL, Lynch E. The biaxial flexural strength of two pressable ceramic systems. J Dent. 1999; 27:183–96.
crossref
21. Rugh EH, Johnston WM, Hesse NS. The relationship between elastomer opacity, colorimeter beam size, and measured colorimetric response. Int J Prosthodont. 1991; 4:569–76.
22. Turgut S, Bagis B, Ayaz EA, Korkmaz FM, Ulusoy KU, Bagis YH. How will surface treatments affect the translucency of porcelain laminate veneers? J Adv Prosthodont. 2014; 6:8–13.
crossref

Fig. 1.
TP results of each experimental group.
jkap-53-138f1.tif
Table 1.
Experimental materials and glazing agents investigated
Material (code) Classification Manufacturer Shade
IPS e.maxPress (IEM) Pressable lithium disilicate Ivoclar Vivadent AG (Schaan, Liechtenstein) A1
IPS e.max Ceram Glaze Glazing paste Ivoclar Vivadent AG (Schaan, Liechtenstein) -
Styleveneers (STV) Pressable lithium disilicate The Mint LLC (Seoul, Korea) A1
Table 2.
TP values and t-test results of materials with/without glazing in 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm thickness
Material not glazed Glazed P-value Increased percentage
Mean SD Mean SD
0.3 mm IEM 45.99 3.00 49.53 2.28 .008 7.70
0.3 mm STV 47.03 3.65 50.95 3.05 .018 8.34
0.6 mm IEM 32.82 2.59 43.02 0.98 .000 31.08
0.6 mm STV 34.48 1.28 43.39 1.20 .000 25.84

IEM: IPS e.maxPress, STV: Styleveneers.

Table 3.
TP values and t-test results between materials in 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm thickness
with/without glazing IEM STV P-value
Mean SD Mean SD
0.3 mm not glazed 45.99 3.00 47.03 3.65 .493
0.3 mm glazed 49.53 2.28 50.95 3.05 .254
0.6 mm not glazed 32.82 2.59 34.48 1.28 .087
0.6 mm glazed 43.02 0.98 43.39 1.20 .459

IEM: IPS e.maxPress, STV: Styleveneers

TOOLS
Similar articles