Sedanur Turgut1, Bora Bağış2, Fatih Mehmet Korkmaz3, Evsen Tamam4. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey. Electronic address: dtsedanur82@hotmail.com. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey. 4. Research Assistant, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Surface treatments may affect the optical properties of ceramic veneers before cementation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether various surface treatments affect the optical properties of different types of ceramic veneers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disk-shaped ceramic veneers (N=280) were prepared from the IPS e.max Press, e.max CAD, Empress Esthetic, e.max Ceram, and Inline ceramic systems with 0.5-mm and 1.0-mm thicknesses. The ceramics were divided into 4 groups: no surface treatments; etched with hydrofluoric acid; airborne-particle abraded with 30-μm Al2O3; and irradiated with erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. A translucent shade of resin was chosen for cementation. Color parameters were examined with a colorimeter. Statistical analyses were done with 3-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni test (P=.05). RESULTS: Significant interactions were noted between the surface treatments, ceramic type, and thickness for ΔE values (P=.01), and no significant interactions were noted for L* (P=.773), a* (P=.984), and b* (P=.998). The greatest color change occurred after airborne-particle abrasion with 0.5-mm-thick e.max Press (2.9 ΔE). Significant differences in ΔE values were found among the hydrofluoric acid, airborne-particle abrasion, and laser groups for 0.5-mm-thick ceramics, except IPS Inline, and among the hydrofluoric acid, airborne-particle abrasion, and laser groups for 1.0-mm-thick ceramics, except Empress Esthetic ceramics. CONCLUSIONS: The color change of the ceramics increased after the surface treatments, particularly as the ceramics became thinner.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Surface treatments may affect the optical properties of ceramic veneers before cementation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether various surface treatments affect the optical properties of different types of ceramic veneers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disk-shaped ceramic veneers (N=280) were prepared from the IPS e.max Press, e.max CAD, Empress Esthetic, e.max Ceram, and Inline ceramic systems with 0.5-mm and 1.0-mm thicknesses. The ceramics were divided into 4 groups: no surface treatments; etched with hydrofluoric acid; airborne-particle abraded with 30-μm Al2O3; and irradiated with erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. A translucent shade of resin was chosen for cementation. Color parameters were examined with a colorimeter. Statistical analyses were done with 3-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni test (P=.05). RESULTS: Significant interactions were noted between the surface treatments, ceramic type, and thickness for ΔE values (P=.01), and no significant interactions were noted for L* (P=.773), a* (P=.984), and b* (P=.998). The greatest color change occurred after airborne-particle abrasion with 0.5-mm-thick e.max Press (2.9 ΔE). Significant differences in ΔE values were found among the hydrofluoric acid, airborne-particle abrasion, and laser groups for 0.5-mm-thick ceramics, except IPS Inline, and among the hydrofluoric acid, airborne-particle abrasion, and laser groups for 1.0-mm-thick ceramics, except Empress Esthetic ceramics. CONCLUSIONS: The color change of the ceramics increased after the surface treatments, particularly as the ceramics became thinner.