Alvin G Wee1, Peter Monaghan, William M Johnston. 1. Section of Restorative Dentistry, Prosthodontics, and Endodontics, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210-9422, USA. Wee.12@osu.edu
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The total quantifiable color difference between shade matching and shade duplication has not been investigated formally. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the color difference of the total color replication process and the direction of the individual color parameters for 3 dental porcelain shade-matching systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The shade of 11 porcelain master disks was determined visually and instrumentally using 3 porcelain shade-matching systems: (1) Vita Lumin/Vita VMK 68, (2) Vitapan 3D-Master/Vita Omega 900, and (3) Shofu ShadeEye-EX/Vintage Halo. Corresponding porcelain disks made of 4.5 mm opaque and 1 mm dentin porcelain were fabricated with each of the porcelain systems. The colors of the master disks and fabricated disks (CIE L* a* b* coordinates) were measured with a spectroradiometer with a 45 degrees /0 degrees configuration. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate within-group differences among the porcelain systems for the total color difference (Delta E) and direction of the color parameters (Delta L, Delta a, and Delta b). The Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch multiple range test was used for post-hoc analysis (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The largest mean Delta E was recorded for the Vitapan 3D-Master system, which was significantly different from the other systems (P=.0024). A significant difference was found between the interaction of the different systems and the direction of color (P=.0024). The amount of change within each color parameter was dependent on the porcelain system, as well as the amount of change among the color parameters. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that reliable delivery of a properly matched restoration to existing porcelain restorations cannot be ensured regardless of the shade assessment method used (visual or computer-generated).
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The total quantifiable color difference between shade matching and shade duplication has not been investigated formally. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the color difference of the total color replication process and the direction of the individual color parameters for 3 dental porcelain shade-matching systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The shade of 11 porcelain master disks was determined visually and instrumentally using 3 porcelain shade-matching systems: (1) Vita Lumin/Vita VMK 68, (2) Vitapan 3D-Master/Vita Omega 900, and (3) Shofu ShadeEye-EX/Vintage Halo. Corresponding porcelain disks made of 4.5 mm opaque and 1 mm dentin porcelain were fabricated with each of the porcelain systems. The colors of the master disks and fabricated disks (CIE L* a* b* coordinates) were measured with a spectroradiometer with a 45 degrees /0 degrees configuration. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate within-group differences among the porcelain systems for the total color difference (Delta E) and direction of the color parameters (Delta L, Delta a, and Delta b). The Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch multiple range test was used for post-hoc analysis (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The largest mean Delta E was recorded for the Vitapan 3D-Master system, which was significantly different from the other systems (P=.0024). A significant difference was found between the interaction of the different systems and the direction of color (P=.0024). The amount of change within each color parameter was dependent on the porcelain system, as well as the amount of change among the color parameters. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that reliable delivery of a properly matched restoration to existing porcelain restorations cannot be ensured regardless of the shade assessment method used (visual or computer-generated).
Authors: J F Bortolatto; H Pretel; M C Floros; A C C Luizzi; A A R Dantas; E Fernandez; G Moncada; O B de Oliveira Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 6.116