PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of different abutment materials and luting cements color on the final color of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten A2 shade IPS e.max Press disc shape all-ceramic specimens were prepared (11 × 1.5 mm). Three different shades (translucent, universal and white opaque) of disc shape luting cement specimens were prepared (11 × 0.2 mm). Three different (zirconium, gold-palladium and titanium) implant abutments and one composite resin disc shape background specimen were prepared at 11 mm diameter and appropriate thicknesses. All ceramic specimens colors were measured with each background and luting cement samples on a teflon mold. A digital spectrophotometer used for measurements and data recorded as CIE L*a*b* color co-ordinates. An optical fluid applied on to the samples to provide a good optical connection and measurements on the composite resin background was saved as the control group. ΔE values were calculated from the ΔL, Δa and Δb values between control and test groups and data were analyzed with one-way variance analysis (ANOVA) and mean values were compared by the Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: One-way ANOVA of ΔL, Δa, Δb and ΔE values of control and test groups revealed significant differences for backgrounds and seldom for cement color groups (p the 0.05). Only zirconium implant abutment groups and gold palladium abutment with universal shade cement group were found to be clinically acceptable (ΔE ≤ 3.0). CONCLUSION: Using titanium or gold-palladium abutments for implant supported all ceramics will be esthetically questionable and white opaque cement will be helpful to mask the dark color of titanium abutment.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of different abutment materials and luting cements color on the final color of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten A2 shade IPS e.max Press disc shape all-ceramic specimens were prepared (11 × 1.5 mm). Three different shades (translucent, universal and white opaque) of disc shape luting cement specimens were prepared (11 × 0.2 mm). Three different (zirconium, gold-palladium and titanium) implant abutments and one composite resin disc shape background specimen were prepared at 11 mm diameter and appropriate thicknesses. All ceramic specimens colors were measured with each background and luting cement samples on a teflon mold. A digital spectrophotometer used for measurements and data recorded as CIE L*a*b* color co-ordinates. An optical fluid applied on to the samples to provide a good optical connection and measurements on the composite resin background was saved as the control group. ΔE values were calculated from the ΔL, Δa and Δb values between control and test groups and data were analyzed with one-way variance analysis (ANOVA) and mean values were compared by the Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: One-way ANOVA of ΔL, Δa, Δb and ΔE values of control and test groups revealed significant differences for backgrounds and seldom for cement color groups (p the 0.05). Only zirconium implant abutment groups and gold palladium abutment with universal shade cement group were found to be clinically acceptable (ΔE ≤ 3.0). CONCLUSION: Using titanium or gold-palladium abutments for implant supported all ceramics will be esthetically questionable and white opaque cement will be helpful to mask the dark color of titanium abutment.