Translucency and masking ability of various opaque-shade composite resins

Kim, Sung Joon; Son, Ho-Hyun; Cho, Byung Hoon; Lee, In Bog; Um, Chung-Moon

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.10.002

Cited by 74 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9 Two parameters are used to evaluate the translucency and opacity of esthetic restorative materials: Absolute translucency (T%) representing the percentage of total light transmittance and relative translucency indicating the masking ability. [10][11][12] Absolute translucency is usually assessed using radiometers or spectrophotometers that measure the total light transmitted through a specimen along with the scattered light. Intensity of transmitted and scattered lights is compared with that of the light source…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Translucency of a Multilayered Ultratranslucent Zirconia Material

Shamseddine¹,

Majzoub²

2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this study was to compare the translucency parameter (TP) of ultratranslucent multilayered (UTML) zirconia according to thickness and layer level. Materials and methods:Rectangles of UTML zirconia with four layers [dentin layer (DEL), first transitional layer (FTL), second transitional layer (STL), and enamel layer (ENL)] and four different thicknesses (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1 mm) were milled from blanks. Digital images were taken in a dark studio against white and black backgrounds under simulated daylight illumination and international commission on illumination (CIE) Lab* color values recorded using Photoshop Creative Cloud software. The TP was computed and compared according to thickness and layer level using analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni post hoc analysis for multiple comparisons. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results:In each thickness, TP values were similar between any two layers. The significant effect of thickness on the TP was observed only in the first two layers. In the DEL, translucency was significantly greater at 0.4 mm than all other thicknesses. In the FTL, differences were significant between 0.4 and 0.8 mm and between 0.4 and 1 mm. Conclusion:The investigated zirconia does not seem to show gradational changes in relative translucency from dentin to enamel levels regardless of the thickness used. Thickness affected the TP only in the first two layers with better translucency at 0.4 mm.Clinical significance: Since relative translucency does not seem to be significantly different between layers, clinicians can modify the apicocoronal positioning of the UTML layers within the restoration according to the desired Chroma without any implications on the clinically perceived translucency. While the thickness of 0.4 mm may be suggested for anterior esthetic veneers because of its higher translucency, the other thicknesses of 0.6 to 1 mm can be used to mask colored abutments in full contour restorations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Translucency of a Multilayered Ultratranslucent Zirconia Material

Shamseddine¹,

Majzoub²

2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the translucency of a material increases, more light is absorbed until the relevant portion of the light is reflected. The different translucencies of dental materials have been investigated by several studies using the translucency parameter (TP) [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. In all of the referenced studies, the TP was determined by measuring the values for L* (lightness), a* (redgreen chromatic coordinates), b* (yellow-blue chromatic coordinates) over W -background (values determined using a white background) and B -background (values determined using a black background) and then substituting them into the following equation:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The TP is closely correlated in inverse proportion to the thickness of the sample [9,10,13,15,20]. Furthermore, the shade of a material can lead to its having a different TP [10,11,14,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of a powder-free three-dimensional (3D) measuring system (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona), when scanning the surface of a material at different angles. Additionally, the influence of water was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS Nine different materials were combined with human tooth surface (enamel) to create n = 27 specimens. These materials were: Controls (InCoris TZI and Cerec Guide Bloc), ceramics (Vitablocs® Mark II and IPS Empress CAD), metals (gold and amalgam) and composites (Tetric Ceram, Filtek Supreme A2B and A2E). The highly polished samples were scanned at different angles with and without water. The 216 scans were then analyzed and descriptive statistics were obtained. RESULTS The height difference between the tooth and material surfaces, as measured with the 3D scans, ranged from 0.83 m (±2.58 m) to -14.79 m (±3.45 m), while the scan noise on the materials was between 3.23 m (±0.79 m) and 14.24 m (±6.79 m) without considering the control groups. Depending on the thickness of the water film, measurement errors in the order of 300-1,600 m could be observed. CONCLUSIONS The inaccuracies between the tooth and material surfaces, as well as the scan noise for the materials, were within the range of error for measurements used for conventional impressions and are therefore negligible. The presence of water, however, greatly affects the scan. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The tested powder-free 3D measuring system can safely be used to scan different material surfaces without the prior application of a powder, although drying of the surface prior to scanning is highly advisable. AbstractObjectives This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of a powder-free 3D measuring system (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona), when scanning the surface of a material at different angles.Additionally, the influence of water was investigated. Materials and MethodsNine different materials were combined with human tooth surface (enamel) to create n = 27 specimens. These materials were: Controls (InCoris TZI, Cerec Guide Bloc), ceramics (Vitablocs ® Mark II and IPS Empress CAD), metals (gold and amalgam) and composites (Tetric Ceram, Filtek Supreme A2B and A2E). The highly polished samples were scanned at different angles with and without water. The 216 scans were then analyzed and descriptive statistics were obtained. ResultsThe height difference between the tooth and material surfaces, as measured with the 3D-scans, ranged from .83 (± 2.58) to -14.79 (± 3.45) µm, while the scan noise on the materials was between 3.23 (± .79) and 14.24 (± 6.79) µm without considering the control groups.Depending on the thickness of the water film, measurement errors in the order of 300-1600 µm could be observed. ConclusionsThe inaccuracies between the tooth and material surfaces, as well as the scan noise for the materials, were within the range of error for measurements used for conventional impressions and are therefore negligible. The presence of water, however, greatly affects the scan.Clinical Relevance The...

show abstract

“…The translucency varies by the manufacturer and shade of the resin composites. [4][5][6][7][8] The translucency parameter (TP) refers to the color difference for a uniform thickness of a substance against a white or black background. 3 TP is a reliable method for evaluating translucency, and several studies have investigated the TP values of resin composites and dental porcelain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 TP is a reliable method for evaluating translucency, and several studies have investigated the TP values of resin composites and dental porcelain. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Light transmittance (%T) is defined as the mean percentage of the light spectrum passed through the specimen relative to direct transmittance. 20 Several researchers have measured the light transmission of dental materials and used it as an index of translucency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Resin Composite Translucency by Two Different Methods

Kim¹,

Park

2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Composite translucency varies by manufacturer. This information should be considered when selecting materials and clinical techniques to improve clinical performance. SUMMARYThe purpose of this study was 1) to compare the translucency of seven different types of composite materials and three different shade categories (dentin, enamel, and translucent) by determining the translucency parameter (TP) and light transmittance (%T) and 2) to evaluate the correlation between the results of the two evaluation methods. ) from different manufacturers were screened in this study. Ten disk-shaped specimens (10 mm in diameter and 1 mm in thickness) were prepared for each material. For the TP measurements, the colors of each specimen were recorded according to the CIELAB color scale against white and black backgrounds with a colorimeter and used to calculate the TP value. For the %T measurements, the mean direct transmittance through the specimen in the range between 380 and 780 nm was recorded using a spectrometer and computer software. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed to compare the TP and %T for the composite materials and shade categories. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used for the seven composite materials per shade category and the three shade categories per composite material. The correlation between the two evaluation methods was determined using the Pearson correlation coefficient. All statistical procedures were performed within a 95% confidence level. TP differed significantly by composite material within each shade category (p,0.05) and by shade category within each composite material (p,0.05). %T differed significantly by composite material within each shade category (p,0.05) and by shade categories within each composite material (p,0.05), except for BF and ES. For the two evaluation methods, TP and %T, were positively correlated (r=0.626, p,0.05). These methods showed strong correlation for each composite

show abstract

Translucency and masking ability of various opaque-shade composite resins

Cited by 74 publications

References 15 publications

Relative Translucency of a Multilayered Ultratranslucent Zirconia Material

Relative Translucency of a Multilayered Ultratranslucent Zirconia Material

Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system

Evaluation of Resin Composite Translucency by Two Different Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About