IADR Abstract Archives
Color Consistency of Six CAD/CAM Dental Restorative Materials
Objectives: Color is an important factor in achieving desired esthetics for all successful dental restorations. This study measured and compared color differences within and between identically-milled, A2-shade crowns, from six different CAD/CAM restorative materials (e.max HT, e.max LT, Empress LT, Empress Multi, Paradigm, and Lava Ultimate).
Methods: Identical crowns, (n=10 each) from a single lot each, of A2-shade material, were milled from the same design using a CAD/CAM Planmeca E4D PlanMill. Crowns were glazed and polished by hand. A Flame optical spectrometer (OceanOptics, Dunedin, FL) was used to measure the LAB color of each crown. A Vita Classical shade guide, tab A2 (Vita, Bad Sackingen, Germany), was also measured and used as a standard to calculate color differences (ΔELab*). A Delta E value of less than 3.7 is considered by the US Public Health Services to be a clinically acceptable color match.
Results: Five of the six restorative materials, with Lava Ultimate being the exception, have an average ΔE value of less than 3.7 when compared to the Vita standard. A one-way ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni post hoc test (p < 0.05) was used to compare color differences among and between the restorative materials. Within groups, only a single group (Lava Ultimate) had a significant differences seen. However, Lava Ultimate had the least color variation within its own group. Amongst the groups, however, Empress LT, Empress Multi, e.max LT, and e.max HT were not significantly different from each other, but the other two groups, showed a significant color difference from every other group.
Conclusions: Even though two of the tested groups of materials tested exhibited a significant color difference when compared to each other, all but one material (Lava Ultimate), can be accepted clinically as having a color that is negligibly different from the Vita A2 shade.
Methods: Identical crowns, (n=10 each) from a single lot each, of A2-shade material, were milled from the same design using a CAD/CAM Planmeca E4D PlanMill. Crowns were glazed and polished by hand. A Flame optical spectrometer (OceanOptics, Dunedin, FL) was used to measure the LAB color of each crown. A Vita Classical shade guide, tab A2 (Vita, Bad Sackingen, Germany), was also measured and used as a standard to calculate color differences (ΔELab*). A Delta E value of less than 3.7 is considered by the US Public Health Services to be a clinically acceptable color match.
Results: Five of the six restorative materials, with Lava Ultimate being the exception, have an average ΔE value of less than 3.7 when compared to the Vita standard. A one-way ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni post hoc test (p < 0.05) was used to compare color differences among and between the restorative materials. Within groups, only a single group (Lava Ultimate) had a significant differences seen. However, Lava Ultimate had the least color variation within its own group. Amongst the groups, however, Empress LT, Empress Multi, e.max LT, and e.max HT were not significantly different from each other, but the other two groups, showed a significant color difference from every other group.
Conclusions: Even though two of the tested groups of materials tested exhibited a significant color difference when compared to each other, all but one material (Lava Ultimate), can be accepted clinically as having a color that is negligibly different from the Vita A2 shade.
IMAGES
2408888_File000000.jpg
2408888_File000000.jpg