Effect of Vitique Esthetic Cementation on Tetracycline Stained Teeth-Mask with Different Simulated Staining Levels Following IPS-Empress II Ceramic Veneers

Abstract

Abstract. To evaluate the color changes of tetracycline stained teeth after restored with IPS-EMPRESS Ⅱ ceramics. Simulated tetracycline stained teeth were divided according to staining degree into four groups: mild, moderate, severe, and very severe groups; each group had ten specimens which were repaired with IPS-EMPRESS Ⅱ ceramics veneers, bonded with Vitique Esthetic Cementation System. The ShadeEye-NCC color system was used to analyze the change in L, a and b. ΔE were calculated to compare color difference among the four groups.Before and after bonding, the values of L, a, b were significantly different (P <0.05). Mild tetracycline stained teeth bonded using resin adhesive without opaque bonding have a better effect than moderate and severe tetracycline stained teeth bonded with opaque resin adhesive; while, it is best to use other restorations to repair very severe tetracycline stained teeth. The IPS-EMPRESS Ⅱ ceramics can effectively improve the color of discolored tooth, however , the final color of the veneered teeth is easily influenced by the color of the abutment teeth. Aluting agent with color masking ability can do some improvements in the final color. An appropriate bonding agent should be chosen to perfect the final results of the veneered tooth.

Experimental methodologies to evaluate the masking ability of dental materials: A systematic review

“…It is a clinical challenge to select esthetic restorative materials and structures capable of masking an undesirable color substrate. Thus, several clinical and laboratory studies were performed simulating darkened dental substrates using metallic structures, 4–6,31,47,51,52,57,61,62 tetracycline stained dentin, 3 acrylic resins, 14,34,51 resin‐based composites, 4,6,9,11,35,36,45,47,50–56,58,60 and ceramics 7,30,40,41,43,56,58 …”

“…The majority of the studies investigated the masking ability by measuring the color difference (∆E), 3,4–14,26,30–62 which was calculated by CIELAB (∆E* ab ) and/or CIEDE2000 (∆E 00 ) formulas. The differences were often obtained from specimens of different restorative materials evaluated on discolored substrates, estimating the masking ability of the material (Table 2).…”

“…10,13,14 In addition, 44% of studies used more than one methodology to evaluate the masking ability. 7,10,[12][13][14]26,33,35,38,40,46,47,49,[54][55][56] From the studies that used ΔE, 95% used the CIELAB color difference equation (ΔE* ab ) 3,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]26,[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] and 14% used the CIEDE2000 color difference equation (ΔE 00 ). 11,26,50,54,56,59 When the masking ability was evaluated using the translucency parameter (TP), 95% of the studies used conventional TP 7,8,11,12,14,…”

“…The main etiological factors of dental color change are inadequate root canal treatment, tetracycline stains, and traumatic dental injuries 1–3 . In addition, metal implant abutments and metal posts are widely used in prosthetic dentistry 4–6 .…”

“…where Y [(L* + 16)/116) 3 Y n ] is defined as the luminance from Tristimulus Color Space (XYZ). The L* value is also used to calculate the spectral reflectance.…”