IADR Abstract Archives
Shade Match Study of Dual-shaded Universal Nanocomposites
Objectives: Direct composites with accurate shade designation help shade selection in dental practice. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the shade matching abilities of a newly developed dual-shaded composite to VITA classic shade guide via color difference determined by ΔE* values.
Methods: A new dual-shaded nanocomposite material, ZNano (A1/B1, A2/B2, A3/A3.5/B3, Zest Dental Solutions), and a commercially available dual-shaded nanocomposite, Synergy Nano Formula (A1/D2, A2/B2, A3/D3, A3.5/B3, Coltene) were tested for their shade match to VITA classic shade guide (VITA North America). Incisor shaped specimens (12x8x3mm) were prepared by duplicating the shape of the shade guide teeth. All specimens were stored at room temperature for at least 24 hours after photocuring. A dental spectrophotometer (VITA EasyShade V, VITA North America) was used to measure color data L*, a*, b* for each specimen and the VITA classic shade guide on a black background. The measurements (n=5) were taken in the center of each tooth specimen, which was approximately 6mm away from the incisor edge. The color difference, ΔE*, was determined by the color data of each shaded composite against the corresponding shade guide using the following equation: ΔE*ab=√(ΔL*)2+(Δa*)2+(Δb*)2 where L* indicates lightness, a* and b* indicate the chromaticity coordinates. A statistical analysis of the results was performed by ANOVA and Tukey Tests (p≤0.05).
Results: Highly repeatable measurements of L*, a* and b* values were obtained from the VITA EasyShade V. The ΔE* value between ZNano and VITA classic shade guide ranged from 2-8 whereas Synergy ranged from 8-14 (Figure 1). In each shade, ZNano showed significantly lower ΔE* than that of Synergy (p≤0.05). Visual comparison indicates that ZNano has a better shade designation than Synergy (Figure 2).
Conclusions: ZNano displayed statistically lower ΔE* and better visual shade match to the VITA classic shade guide than that of Synergy.
Methods: A new dual-shaded nanocomposite material, ZNano (A1/B1, A2/B2, A3/A3.5/B3, Zest Dental Solutions), and a commercially available dual-shaded nanocomposite, Synergy Nano Formula (A1/D2, A2/B2, A3/D3, A3.5/B3, Coltene) were tested for their shade match to VITA classic shade guide (VITA North America). Incisor shaped specimens (12x8x3mm) were prepared by duplicating the shape of the shade guide teeth. All specimens were stored at room temperature for at least 24 hours after photocuring. A dental spectrophotometer (VITA EasyShade V, VITA North America) was used to measure color data L*, a*, b* for each specimen and the VITA classic shade guide on a black background. The measurements (n=5) were taken in the center of each tooth specimen, which was approximately 6mm away from the incisor edge. The color difference, ΔE*, was determined by the color data of each shaded composite against the corresponding shade guide using the following equation: ΔE*ab=√(ΔL*)2+(Δa*)2+(Δb*)2 where L* indicates lightness, a* and b* indicate the chromaticity coordinates. A statistical analysis of the results was performed by ANOVA and Tukey Tests (p≤0.05).
Results: Highly repeatable measurements of L*, a* and b* values were obtained from the VITA EasyShade V. The ΔE* value between ZNano and VITA classic shade guide ranged from 2-8 whereas Synergy ranged from 8-14 (Figure 1). In each shade, ZNano showed significantly lower ΔE* than that of Synergy (p≤0.05). Visual comparison indicates that ZNano has a better shade designation than Synergy (Figure 2).
Conclusions: ZNano displayed statistically lower ΔE* and better visual shade match to the VITA classic shade guide than that of Synergy.
IMAGES
3316890_File000001.jpg
3316890_File000003.jpg
3316890_File000001.jpg
3316890_File000003.jpg
