Spectrophotometric evaluation of color errors generated in the visual color duplication procedure for current ceramic veneers.
Ceramics
Color
Dental veneers
Tooth
Journal
Journal of dental sciences
ISSN: 2213-8862
Titre abrégé: J Dent Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101293181
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
20
06
2020
revised:
29
06
2020
entrez:
1
1
2021
pubmed:
2
1
2021
medline:
2
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Color errors associated with the visual color duplication approach for ceramic laminate veneers are still challenging in esthetic dentistry. The aim of this study is to evaluate color errors generated during traditional visual shade matching approach. Eighteen stooth-shaped veneer discs (shade A2 and 0.7 mm in thickness) were fabricated using six veneer materials. The veneer specimens placed on five extracted teeth with nominal shade A2 formed veneer-tooth combinations. Color coordinates of the A2 shade tab, the extracted teeth, and the veneer-tooth combinations were measured using a spectrophotometer. Then, the veneers were reduced to 0.5 mm, and 0.3 mm in thickness consecutively. Color measurements were performed repeatedly. Color differences of the extracted teeth to veneer-tooth combinations (ΔEt-v), veneer-tooth combinations to shade tab (ΔEv-s), and translucency parameter (TP) values were calculated and analyzed using Two-way ANOVA. ΔEt-v ranged from 2.0937 to 5.0603 (mean of 3.1833±1.5485). Mean of ΔEv-s was 4.0103±1.8508. ΔEt-v and ΔEv-s values were significantly influenced by veneer material and thickness (P<0.05). TP values decreased gradually with the lessening of veneers thickness. Acceptable color duplication of ceramic veneers cannot be achieved by routine visual shade replica protocols, when the thickness of veneers is less than 0.7 mm. Specified color matching standards for the ceramic veneers are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Color errors associated with the visual color duplication approach for ceramic laminate veneers are still challenging in esthetic dentistry. The aim of this study is to evaluate color errors generated during traditional visual shade matching approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Eighteen stooth-shaped veneer discs (shade A2 and 0.7 mm in thickness) were fabricated using six veneer materials. The veneer specimens placed on five extracted teeth with nominal shade A2 formed veneer-tooth combinations. Color coordinates of the A2 shade tab, the extracted teeth, and the veneer-tooth combinations were measured using a spectrophotometer. Then, the veneers were reduced to 0.5 mm, and 0.3 mm in thickness consecutively. Color measurements were performed repeatedly. Color differences of the extracted teeth to veneer-tooth combinations (ΔEt-v), veneer-tooth combinations to shade tab (ΔEv-s), and translucency parameter (TP) values were calculated and analyzed using Two-way ANOVA.
RESULTS
RESULTS
ΔEt-v ranged from 2.0937 to 5.0603 (mean of 3.1833±1.5485). Mean of ΔEv-s was 4.0103±1.8508. ΔEt-v and ΔEv-s values were significantly influenced by veneer material and thickness (P<0.05). TP values decreased gradually with the lessening of veneers thickness.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Acceptable color duplication of ceramic veneers cannot be achieved by routine visual shade replica protocols, when the thickness of veneers is less than 0.7 mm. Specified color matching standards for the ceramic veneers are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33384791
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.06.023
pii: S1991-7902(20)30147-1
pmc: PMC7770292
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
145-153Informations de copyright
© 2020 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
Références
Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018 Dec 14;6(12):2402-2408
pubmed: 30607201
J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Sep;106(3):179-83
pubmed: 21889004
J Dent Res. 1989 Dec;68(12):1760-4
pubmed: 2600257
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jan;117(1):144-149
pubmed: 27460330
Int J Prosthodont. 2012 Jan-Feb;25(1):79-85
pubmed: 22259802
Phys Med Biol. 1994 Jul;39(7):1133-42
pubmed: 15552102
J Dent. 2010;38 Suppl 2:e2-16
pubmed: 20621154
J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Mar;105(3):171-6
pubmed: 21356409
J Prosthet Dent. 1970 Aug;24(2):166-73
pubmed: 5269632
J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Apr;97(4):200-8
pubmed: 17499089
Int J Prosthodont. 2012 Nov-Dec;25(6):604-12
pubmed: 23101040
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Dec;90(6):563-70
pubmed: 14668757
J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Dec;80(6):642-8
pubmed: 9830067
Int J Prosthodont. 2016 Jan-Feb;29(1):38-49
pubmed: 26757327
Acta Odontol Scand. 2009;67(1):57-64
pubmed: 19037822
Dent Mater J. 2016;35(1):63-9
pubmed: 26830824
Acta Biomater. 2018 Jul 1;74:454-463
pubmed: 29705528
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020 Jan 17;:
pubmed: 31951089
J Dent. 2000 Mar;28(3):163-77
pubmed: 10709338
Int J Prosthodont. 1992 Nov-Dec;5(6):495-502
pubmed: 1307007
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Dec;112(6):1553-8
pubmed: 25134994
Dent Clin North Am. 1985 Oct;29(4):667-72
pubmed: 3865830
J Biomed Opt. 2015 Apr;20(4):045002
pubmed: 25875626
J Can Dent Assoc. 2010;76:a126
pubmed: 20943031
J Dent Res. 2002 Aug;81(8):578-82
pubmed: 12147751
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Apr;17(3):823-32
pubmed: 22821429
Eur J Esthet Dent. 2013 Autumn;8(3):376-88
pubmed: 23957038
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Aug;122(2):160-166
pubmed: 30885587
Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Sep/Oct;31(5):453-455
pubmed: 30180230
J Prosthodont. 2010 Aug;19(6):465-70
pubmed: 20546495
J Dent. 2010;38 Suppl 2:e117-22
pubmed: 20362639
J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Jun;87(6):657-66
pubmed: 12131889
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998 Jun;19(6):625-8, 630, 632 passim; quiz 638
pubmed: 9693518
Dent Mater. 2011 Jan;27(1):97-108
pubmed: 21122905
J Dent. 2004;32 Suppl 1:3-12
pubmed: 14738829
J Prosthodont. 2014 Jun;23(4):308-12
pubmed: 24393439
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006 Feb;26(1):31-41
pubmed: 16515094
Int J Prosthodont. 2012 Nov-Dec;25(6):590-603
pubmed: 23101039
J Oral Rehabil. 2009 Jan;36(1):65-70
pubmed: 18976272