IADR Abstract Archives
Shade Color Consistency of Different CAD/CAM Dental Restorative Materials
Objectives: Color is an important criterion to consider in achieving the desired esthetics for a successful dental restoration. Last year, we reported on 6 CAD materials that we compared to the Vita A2 shade and they had negligibly different color. This project measured the color uniformity within single blocks of CAD materials from different manufacturers as measured by two colorimeters.
Methods: Samples (n=3) of different CAD/CAM materials in shade A2 were sectioned into slabs (thickness = 4mm) using a water-cooled precision rotatory saw. They were wet polished through 600 grit using abrasive papers. Materials selected for analysis were: IPS e.max LT CAD; IPS e.max HT CAD; IPS e.max MT CAD; Empress LT; Empress HT; and Empress Multi (all from Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY); Lava Ultimate LT and Lava Ultimate HT; (3M, St. Paul, MN); Enamic T and Enamic HT (VITA, Yorba Linda, CA). A Flame optical spectrometer (OceanOptics, Dunedin, FL) and a spectro-guide spectrophotometer (BYK-Gardner, Geretsrid, Germany) were both used to measure the color of each material, using L*a*b method. Measurements were performed against a white and black background. Materials were grouped according to their reported translucency as either 1) HT, 2) MT or T, and 3) LT. CIEDE2000 (ΔE00) values were calculated between the different groups compared to the L*a*b values recorded for e.max within each group.
Results: Values obtained from the spectrometer and the spectro-guide were significantly different. A one-way ANOVA (with Tukey post-hoc test (α=0.05) was used to compare color differences amongst the materials. A white vs a black background yielded significant differences when samples were measured using a spectrometer, but not with the color guide instrument. The two colorimeters reported widely varying L*a*b values and hence different ΔE with most materials. See figures.
Conclusions: To obtain the best color match for restorations, both the color and material must be considered.
Methods: Samples (n=3) of different CAD/CAM materials in shade A2 were sectioned into slabs (thickness = 4mm) using a water-cooled precision rotatory saw. They were wet polished through 600 grit using abrasive papers. Materials selected for analysis were: IPS e.max LT CAD; IPS e.max HT CAD; IPS e.max MT CAD; Empress LT; Empress HT; and Empress Multi (all from Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY); Lava Ultimate LT and Lava Ultimate HT; (3M, St. Paul, MN); Enamic T and Enamic HT (VITA, Yorba Linda, CA). A Flame optical spectrometer (OceanOptics, Dunedin, FL) and a spectro-guide spectrophotometer (BYK-Gardner, Geretsrid, Germany) were both used to measure the color of each material, using L*a*b method. Measurements were performed against a white and black background. Materials were grouped according to their reported translucency as either 1) HT, 2) MT or T, and 3) LT. CIEDE2000 (ΔE00) values were calculated between the different groups compared to the L*a*b values recorded for e.max within each group.
Results: Values obtained from the spectrometer and the spectro-guide were significantly different. A one-way ANOVA (with Tukey post-hoc test (α=0.05) was used to compare color differences amongst the materials. A white vs a black background yielded significant differences when samples were measured using a spectrometer, but not with the color guide instrument. The two colorimeters reported widely varying L*a*b values and hence different ΔE with most materials. See figures.
Conclusions: To obtain the best color match for restorations, both the color and material must be considered.
IMAGES
2631070_File000000.jpg
2631070_File000001.jpg
2631070_File000000.jpg
2631070_File000001.jpg