IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of Tooth Color Match of Universal-Shade Composites
Objectives: Efficiency in shade match may increase patient satisfaction and reduce chair time. This study compares the color matching potential of universal-shade composite resins in teeth.
Methods: Four commercial universal-shade composite resins were examined: Venus Pearl One Shade (Kulzer), Omnichroma One-Shade Universal Composite (Tokuyama), Admira Fusion x-tra Omni-chromatic Universal Shade (VOCO), and Clearfil Majesty ES-2 Universal (Kuraray). The VITA 3D Master shades of twenty-five virgin human extracted molars were measured with a VITA Easyshade V on non-occlusal surfaces. Two standardized preparations (Ø2mm×2mm in depth, Ø3mm×3mm in depth) were made on the same non-occlusal teeth surfaces. The same preparations were then restored sequentially with each of the four universal-shade composites and polished with Meisinger 9609U-110, 9787-145. Specimens were well-hydrated before measurements. Photographs of restored teeth were captured by a Nikon D90 (F=105mm, f/9, 1/13, ISO-250) in an X-rite Macbeth Judge II lightbox under DAY mode at 19-inch distance. The white balance of the camera was calibrated using a WhiBal G7 White Balance Pocket Card (L*=75, a*=0, b*=0). L*, a*, b* values of teeth and restorations were obtained from a VITA Easyshade V and from the photographic images with Digital Color Meter on a MacBook Air. The difference of L*, a*, b*, and ΔE* were quantified and compared among the composites, tooth shades, and restoration sizes with muti-way ANOVA analysis and least square fit model by JMP.
Results: The photographic comparison among composites was shown in Figure 1. A significant difference in color match was found among shades, but color match capability was found to be insignificant among composites. Light shades have the worst color match. Camera and Easyshade share the same mechanism in natural teeth color identifications, but different in restorations.
Conclusions: Universal shade composites present an acceptable color match to natural teeth, especially for medium- and dark-shade teeth.
Methods: Four commercial universal-shade composite resins were examined: Venus Pearl One Shade (Kulzer), Omnichroma One-Shade Universal Composite (Tokuyama), Admira Fusion x-tra Omni-chromatic Universal Shade (VOCO), and Clearfil Majesty ES-2 Universal (Kuraray). The VITA 3D Master shades of twenty-five virgin human extracted molars were measured with a VITA Easyshade V on non-occlusal surfaces. Two standardized preparations (Ø2mm×2mm in depth, Ø3mm×3mm in depth) were made on the same non-occlusal teeth surfaces. The same preparations were then restored sequentially with each of the four universal-shade composites and polished with Meisinger 9609U-110, 9787-145. Specimens were well-hydrated before measurements. Photographs of restored teeth were captured by a Nikon D90 (F=105mm, f/9, 1/13, ISO-250) in an X-rite Macbeth Judge II lightbox under DAY mode at 19-inch distance. The white balance of the camera was calibrated using a WhiBal G7 White Balance Pocket Card (L*=75, a*=0, b*=0). L*, a*, b* values of teeth and restorations were obtained from a VITA Easyshade V and from the photographic images with Digital Color Meter on a MacBook Air. The difference of L*, a*, b*, and ΔE* were quantified and compared among the composites, tooth shades, and restoration sizes with muti-way ANOVA analysis and least square fit model by JMP.
Results: The photographic comparison among composites was shown in Figure 1. A significant difference in color match was found among shades, but color match capability was found to be insignificant among composites. Light shades have the worst color match. Camera and Easyshade share the same mechanism in natural teeth color identifications, but different in restorations.
Conclusions: Universal shade composites present an acceptable color match to natural teeth, especially for medium- and dark-shade teeth.
3715590_File000005.jpg
3715590_File000004.jpg