PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the background color-interceptive ability and opacity of opaque shade composites (Universal composite, Filtek Z350, Charisma, Clearfil ST, Palpaque Estelite, Esthet-X, and Metafil Flo).
Twenty four background specimens (diameter 5.5 mm, thickness 3.0 mm) with Root dentin Mustard (Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA) were made. The CIE L*a*b* value of background specimens was measured by a spectrophotometer (Spectrolino, GretagMacbeth, Regensdorf, Switzerland). Three specimens in every group were filled on the background specimens. The surface color of samples was measured by a spectrophotometer in 3.0 mm and every thickness to 0.5 mm while grinding. The color difference in the background color along with 3.0 mm specimen gauged the masking effect in each thickness while grinding and polishing. The opacity was calculated in 1 mm thick specimens.
The opacity was in the decreasing order of Clearfil ST, Metafil Flo, Filtek Z350, Palpaque Estelite, Universal composite, Charisma, and Esthet-X (p < 0.05). As the thickness get reduced, L* value showed decreasing, a* increasing tendency. The surface color difference between pair of the 3.0 mm thick specimen and after grinding in same opaque resin was above 3.3 except Clearfil ST and Metafil Flo. The color difference (ΔE*) between pair of background specimen and opaque resin builtup specimen showed more than 10.0 regardless kinds and thickness.
The variance in opacity characteristics and color of the opaque composites is dependent upon manufacturer. When using the opaque resin, the optical properties of each material must be considered as well as cavity.
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Shifts of L* values on the Mustard background according to the thickness.
Abbreviation. UC: Universal composite, Z350: Filtek Z350, CHA: Charisma, ST: Clearfil ST, PAL: Palpaque Estelite, EX: Esthet-X, MF: Metafil Flo, ES: Estelite Sigma.
Figure 4
Color difference (ΔE*) between Root dentin Mustard and integrated opaque resin at each thickness is over 10 in all thickness except ES. ST and MF are greater than others and ES shows the most little color difference.
Figure 5
Color difference (ΔE*) between 3.0 mm opaque composite and integrated each thickness specimen is lesser than 3.3 on ST specimens regardless thickness. As the thickness of the specimen is decreased, color difference against the 3.0 mm specimen gradually increased.
Figure 6
1 mm specimens for opacity were made. The most highest value is 0.99 in ST and the opacity is in the decreasing order of ST, MF, Z350, PAL, UC, CHA, and EX. Every group shows statistical significant difference by one-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls method (p < 0.05).
Table 2
Average L*a*b* values of integrated composites according to the opaque composite thickness S.D. is in the parenthesis
Table 3
Color difference (ΔE*) between Root dentin Mustard and integrated opaque shade composite at each thickness (mm)
References
1. Johnston WM, Reisbick MH. Color and translucency changes during and after curing of esthetic restorative materials. Dent Mater. 1997. 13:89–97.
2. Ikeda T, Murata Y, Sano H. Translucency of opaqueshade resin composites. Am J Dent. 2004. 17:127–130.
3. Lee YK, Powers JM. Calculation of colour resulting from composite/ compomer layering techniques. J Oral Rehabil. 2004. 31:1102–1108.
4. Powers JM, Dennision JB, Lepeak PJ. Parameters that affect the colors of direct restorative resins. J Dent Res. 1978. 57:876–880.
5. Gross MD, Moser JB. A colorimetric study of coffee and tea staining of four composite resins. J Oral Rehabil. 1977. 4:311–322.
6. Mount GJ, Ngo H. Minimal intervention: a new concept for operative dentistry. Quintessence Int. 2000. 31:527–533.
7. Ruyter IE, Nilner K, Moller B. Color stability of dental composite resin materials for crown and bridge veneers. Dent Mater. 1987. 3:246–251.
8. Peters MC, McLean ME. Minimally invasive operative care. I. Minimal intervention and concepts for minimally invasive cavity preparations. J Adhes Dent. 2001. 3:7–16.
9. Peters MC, McLean ME. Minimally invasive operative care. II. Contemporary techniques and materials: an overview. J Adhes Dent. 2001. 3:17–31.
10. Roulet JF, Vanherle G. Adhesive Technology for Restorative Dentistry. 2005. Quintessence Publishing Co, Ltd.
11. Clark EB. An analysis of tooth color. J Am Dent Assoc. 1931. 18:2093–2103.
12. Miyagawa Y, Powers JM. Prediction of Color of an Esthetic Restorative Material. J Dent Res. 1983. 62:581–584.
13. Dozic A, Kleverlaan CJ, Meegdes M, van der Zel J, Feilzer AJ. The influence of porcelain layer thickness on the final shade of ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2003. 90:563–570.
14. Hwang IN, Lee KW. Translucency of light cured composite resins depends on thickness & its influence on color of restorations. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 1999. 24:585–603.
15. Hwang IN, Park SJ, Kim SW, Kim TG, Yeum CM, Cho SJ, Hwang YC, Park YJ, Oh WM. The Influence of Layering Placement of Different Shade Composite Resins on Surface Color. J Korea Res Soc Dent Mater. 2003. 30:325–335.
16. Kamishima N, Ikeda T, Sano H. Color and translucency of resin composites for layering techniques. Dent Mater J. 2005. 24:428–432.
17. Ikeda T, Sidhu SK, Omata Y, Fujita M, Sano H. Colour and translucency of opaque-shades and body-shades of resin composites. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005. 113:170–173.
18. Kamishima N, Ikeda T, Sano H. Effect of enamel shades on color of layered resin composites. Dent Mater J. 2006. 25:26–31.
19. Crisp S, Abel G, Wilson AD. The quantitative measurement of the opacity of aesthetic dental filling materials. J Dent Res. 1979. 58:1585–1596.
XML Download