IADR Abstract Archives

Light Flux and Color Differences Between Ceramic Dental Materials

Objectives: To investigate the contribution of specular light flux on color differences (ΔEs) between ceramic materials.
Methods: Glossy, disc-shaped specimens (n=5/gp/shade) of porcelain fused-metal (PFM), porcelain fused-zirconia (PFZ), and lithium-disilicate glass ceramic (LDG) materials were fabricated in A2, B2, and C2 shades. Reflectance spectra were obtained for each glossy-surfaced specimen and repeated after the gloss was removed. Reflectance measurements were made with the specular light component excluded (SCE) and included (SCI). ΔEs were determined using the CIEL*a*b* formula. A threshold ΔE (ThΔE) of 2.0 was used to identify possible observable ΔEs.
Results: In PFM and PFZ, ΔEs between glossy and dull surfaces were minimally detectable in the three shades studied when the efflux light includes a specular component. ΔEs would likely be clinically observed in LDG regardless of the specular component (Table 1). Shade B2 had the lowest ΔEs between the materials (Tables 1, 2). ΔEs ≥ ThΔE are bolded in the tables below.
Conclusions: Interactions between light flux components and surface texture may have a greater bearing on color and appearance than previously considered.
Division: AADR/CADR Annual Meeting
Meeting: 2016 AADR/CADR Annual Meeting (Los Angeles, California)
Location: Los Angeles, California
Year: 2016
Final Presentation ID: 0624
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 7: Color and Appearance (Esthetics)
Authors
  • Byrd, Brooklin  ( University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Dentistry , Memphis , Tennessee , United States )
  • Ragain, James  ( University of Tennesee Health Science Center , Collierville , Tennessee , United States )
  • Morrow, Brian  ( University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Dentistry , Memphis , Tennessee , United States )
  • West, Constance  ( University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Dentistry , Memphis , Tennessee , United States )
  • Hottel, Timothy  ( University of Tennessee , Memphis , Tennessee , United States )
  • Garcia-godoy, Franklin  ( University of Tennessee , Memphis , Tennessee , United States )
  • Support Funding Agency/Grant Number: UTHSC College of Dentistry Alumni Endowment Fund and Tennessee Dental Association Foundation
    Financial Interest Disclosure: NONE
    SESSION INFORMATION
    Poster Session
    Color and Appearance (Esthetics) III
    Thursday, 03/17/2016 , 03:30PM - 04:45PM
    TABLES
    Table 1. ΔE between L*a*b* glossy and L*a*b* dull with SCI and SCE for each shade and material.
    ShadePFM SCIPFM SCEPFZ SCIPFZ SCELDG SCILDG SCE
    A21.23.30.93.64.15.6
    B20.42.20.82.64.86.6
    C20.42.20.93.24.47.1

    Table 2. ΔEs between glossy and dull surfaces with SCI.
     ShadesPFM-PFZPFM-LDGPFZ-LDG
    SCI GlossyA24.93.25.3
     B22.12.12.0
     C23.82.63.2
    SCI DullA23.54.28.4
     B22.62.54.2
     C27.94.05.7