Color dimensions of additive manufactured interim restorative dental material.
Journal
The Journal of prosthetic dentistry
ISSN: 1097-6841
Titre abrégé: J Prosthet Dent
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376364
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
25
09
2018
revised:
22
05
2019
accepted:
13
06
2019
pubmed:
28
10
2019
medline:
12
5
2020
entrez:
27
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Interim dental restorations can be fabricated by using additive manufacturing (AM) technologies. Although dental restoration contours can be easily and accurately fabricated by using computer-aided design (CAD) procedures, protocols for creating predictable color dimensions of AM interim restorations are lacking. The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare color dimensions of different AM and conventional interim restorative materials. Disks (N=420) were fabricated by using either conventionally (CNV group) or additively manufactured (AM group) materials. The CNV group was further divided into the subgroups CNV-1 (Protemp 4; 3M ESPE) and CNV-2 (Anaxdent new outline dentin; Anaxdent). AM subgroups included AM-1 (FreePrint temp; Detax), AM-2 (E-Dent 400; Envisiontec), AM-3 (NextDent C&B; NextDent), AM-4 (NextDent C&B MFH; NextDent), and AM-5 (Med620 VEROGlaze; Stratasys). Color measurements in the CIELab coordinates were made by using a spectrophotometer (VITA EasyShade Advance 4.0; VITA) with a standardized photography gray card as a background under room light conditions (1003 lux). Color difference (ΔE*) values were calculated by using the CIE76 and CIEDE2000 formulas. The data were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis test with nonparametric pairwise comparisons. Owing to a software error, the spectrophotometer was unable to measure the color of any specimens in the AM-5 subgroup, which was consequently excluded from further analysis. Significant differences (P=.001) between 2 manufacturing groups were found based on the L* variable. All subgroups were significantly different from each other for all 3 variables (P<.001). Pairwise comparisons revealed that all groups were significantly different from each other, except for the AM-1 and AM-2 subgroups, compared with the CNV-1 subgroup for the L* color dimension. The ΔE* values calculated by using the CIE76 formula varied from 6.63 to 23.1 and by using the CIEDE2000 formula from 3.43 to 10.21, suggesting a perceptible and unacceptable color mismatch between the CNV and AM groups. None of the additively manufactured interim materials tested matched the conventional interim materials in all 3 CIELab color dimensions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31653404
pii: S0022-3913(18)30841-2
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.001
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Materials
0
Dental Porcelain
12001-21-7
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
754-760Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.