IADR Abstract Archives
Instrumental and Visual Shade Match Evaluation of Three Composite Materials
Objectives: To evaluate the shade match of three composite-resin restorative materials to bi-layered acrylic teeth instrumentally and visually.
Methods: Three composite materials were used in this study- Omnichroma (OM, single-shade), TPH Spectra ST (TS, cloud-shade) and Tetric EvoCeram (TE, multiple-shade). The L*,a*, and b* values of 15 acrylic teeth per shade A2, B1, B2, C2 and D3 were recorded using VITA Easyshade V. Corresponding shades of the composites were placed into occlusal preparations (5mm diameter, 2mm depth) on 5 acrylic teeth per shade, forming a flat surface and cured using Bluephase G2 light. The L*,a*, and b* values were recorded for the restorations. Mean ΔE* values were calculated and assessed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison tests for significance (p<0.05). For the visual evaluation, similar occlusal preparations on fifteen teeth (three teeth per shade of composite) were restored to anatomical form with the three composites. Thirty evaluators subjectively graded the restorations as 1-best match, 2-intermediate and 3-poorest match for each shade.
Results: There was a significant difference in the ΔE* values among the three materials for all shades except B2 for OM and TE. The ΔE* values were generally high for all three composites. However, for OM and TS, the ΔE* values for lighter shades (A2, B1 and B2) were lower than the darker shades (C2 and D3). TE showed similar ΔE* values for all shades, within a narrower range (7.01-10.26). The lowest ΔE* value (5.53) was observed for OM, shade B1. In the subjective evaluation, TE exhibited the best shade match for darker shades C2 and D3. OM and TS matched better only with lighter shades A2, B1, and B2.
Conclusions: Shade matching is composite and shade-dependent. OM and TS matched teeth of lighter shades better. TE was more consistent in all shades.
Methods: Three composite materials were used in this study- Omnichroma (OM, single-shade), TPH Spectra ST (TS, cloud-shade) and Tetric EvoCeram (TE, multiple-shade). The L*,a*, and b* values of 15 acrylic teeth per shade A2, B1, B2, C2 and D3 were recorded using VITA Easyshade V. Corresponding shades of the composites were placed into occlusal preparations (5mm diameter, 2mm depth) on 5 acrylic teeth per shade, forming a flat surface and cured using Bluephase G2 light. The L*,a*, and b* values were recorded for the restorations. Mean ΔE* values were calculated and assessed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison tests for significance (p<0.05). For the visual evaluation, similar occlusal preparations on fifteen teeth (three teeth per shade of composite) were restored to anatomical form with the three composites. Thirty evaluators subjectively graded the restorations as 1-best match, 2-intermediate and 3-poorest match for each shade.
Results: There was a significant difference in the ΔE* values among the three materials for all shades except B2 for OM and TE. The ΔE* values were generally high for all three composites. However, for OM and TS, the ΔE* values for lighter shades (A2, B1 and B2) were lower than the darker shades (C2 and D3). TE showed similar ΔE* values for all shades, within a narrower range (7.01-10.26). The lowest ΔE* value (5.53) was observed for OM, shade B1. In the subjective evaluation, TE exhibited the best shade match for darker shades C2 and D3. OM and TS matched better only with lighter shades A2, B1, and B2.
Conclusions: Shade matching is composite and shade-dependent. OM and TS matched teeth of lighter shades better. TE was more consistent in all shades.
