STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although ceramic veneers have been proven to be clinically successful in longevity studies, there is little information on the contrast ratios and masking ability of the available ceramic systems because dental laboratory technology and expensive experimental equipment are required for the investigation. Moreover, the complexity in understanding how to evaluate translucent ceramic materials may also explain why information in this area is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the contrast ratios and masking abilities of 3 types of all-ceramic veneers by measuring their luminance and color difference over white and black backgrounds. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disk-shaped specimens (8-mm diameter x 0.7-mm thickness) of Shade A2 (Vita Lumin) of 3 types of all-ceramic systems: Procera (n=8), Empress 2 (n=8), and Vitadur Alpha (n=10) were fabricated. The luminance (as Y) and color (as CIE L*a*b*) of the specimens were measured with a colorimeter. The contrast ratio (CR=Yb/Yw), defined as the ratio of illuminance (Y) of the test material when it is placed on the black background (Yb) to the illuminance of the same material when it is placed over a white background (Yw), was determined. The masking ability of a specimen was evaluated by calculating the color difference (DeltaE) of the veneers over white and black backgrounds. Both CR and DeltaE* data were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The mean contrast ratios (SD) of Procera, Empress 2, and Vitadur Alpha specimens were 0.50 (0.02), 0.46 (0.05), and 0.39 (0.02), respectively. CR values were significantly different among the 3 materials (P<.001). Procera veneers had a significantly higher CR compared to Empress 2 (P=.01) or Vitadur Alpha (P=.01), whereas the CR of Empress 2 was significantly higher than that of Vitadur Alpha (P=.046). Color difference (DeltaE*) (SD) of Procera, Empress 2, and Vitadur Alpha specimens over black and white backgrounds were 24.46 (1.03), 25.80 (1.03), and 31.08 (1.19), respectively. DeltaE* values were statistically different among the 3 materials (P<.001). Vitadur Alpha specimens had significantly higher DeltaE* when compared with Procera (P<.001) or Empress 2 (P<.001), whereas DeltaE* values between Procera and Empress 2 were not significantly different (P=.331). CONCLUSIONS: Vitadur Alpha had significantly lower contrast ratio and poorer masking ability compared to Procera or Empress 2. The clinical application of Vitadur Alpha as a veneer material over discolored teeth is cautioned. Although the contrast ratio of Procera was significantly higher than that of Empress 2, the masking abilities of these materials were not significantly different. The clinical application of these 2 ceramics as a veneer material may still be limited when applied over intense tooth discoloration because neither can fully mask the color of a black background.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although ceramic veneers have been proven to be clinically successful in longevity studies, there is little information on the contrast ratios and masking ability of the available ceramic systems because dental laboratory technology and expensive experimental equipment are required for the investigation. Moreover, the complexity in understanding how to evaluate translucent ceramic materials may also explain why information in this area is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the contrast ratios and masking abilities of 3 types of all-ceramic veneers by measuring their luminance and color difference over white and black backgrounds. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disk-shaped specimens (8-mm diameter x 0.7-mm thickness) of Shade A2 (Vita Lumin) of 3 types of all-ceramic systems: Procera (n=8), Empress 2 (n=8), and Vitadur Alpha (n=10) were fabricated. The luminance (as Y) and color (as CIE L*a*b*) of the specimens were measured with a colorimeter. The contrast ratio (CR=Yb/Yw), defined as the ratio of illuminance (Y) of the test material when it is placed on the black background (Yb) to the illuminance of the same material when it is placed over a white background (Yw), was determined. The masking ability of a specimen was evaluated by calculating the color difference (DeltaE) of the veneers over white and black backgrounds. Both CR and DeltaE* data were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The mean contrast ratios (SD) of Procera, Empress 2, and Vitadur Alpha specimens were 0.50 (0.02), 0.46 (0.05), and 0.39 (0.02), respectively. CR values were significantly different among the 3 materials (P<.001). Procera veneers had a significantly higher CR compared to Empress 2 (P=.01) or Vitadur Alpha (P=.01), whereas the CR of Empress 2 was significantly higher than that of Vitadur Alpha (P=.046). Color difference (DeltaE*) (SD) of Procera, Empress 2, and Vitadur Alpha specimens over black and white backgrounds were 24.46 (1.03), 25.80 (1.03), and 31.08 (1.19), respectively. DeltaE* values were statistically different among the 3 materials (P<.001). Vitadur Alpha specimens had significantly higher DeltaE* when compared with Procera (P<.001) or Empress 2 (P<.001), whereas DeltaE* values between Procera and Empress 2 were not significantly different (P=.331). CONCLUSIONS: Vitadur Alpha had significantly lower contrast ratio and poorer masking ability compared to Procera or Empress 2. The clinical application of Vitadur Alpha as a veneer material over discolored teeth is cautioned. Although the contrast ratio of Procera was significantly higher than that of Empress 2, the masking abilities of these materials were not significantly different. The clinical application of these 2 ceramics as a veneer material may still be limited when applied over intense tooth discoloration because neither can fully mask the color of a black background.
Authors: Daiana Kelly Lopes Hernandes; Cesar Augusto Galvão Arrais; Erick de Lima; Paulo Francisco Cesar; José Augusto Rodrigues Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2016 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.698