Literature DB >> 26178651

Silorane, ormocer, methacrylate and compomer long-term staining susceptibility using ΔE and ΔE 00 colour-difference formulas.

Ladislav Gregor1, Ivo Krejci1, Enrico Di Bella2, Albert J Feilzer3, Stefano Ardu4.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the staining susceptibility of a silorane (Filtek Silorane), an ormocer (Ceram X Duo), a methacrylate (Tetric EvoCeram) and a compomer (Dyract) exposed on the long term to various staining agents by using ΔE and ΔE 00 colour-difference formulas. Thirty-six disc-shaped specimens were made of each of the four chemically different materials, randomly divided in six groups (n = 6) and immersed in five staining solutions (red wine, juice, coke, tea and coffee) or stored dry (control) in an incubator at 37 °C for 99 days. Spectrophotometric measurements by means of a spectrophotometer (Spectroshade Handy Dental, MHT) were repeated over a white (L* = 92.6, a* = -1.2, b* = 2.9) and black (L* = 1.6, a* = 1.2, b* = -1.0) background made of plasticized paper, in order to determine the colour changes according to ΔE, ΔE 00 and translucency formulas. Statistical analysis was performed by means of factorial Anova, Fisher's LSD test (post hoc) and a Spearman rank correlation between ΔE and ΔE 00. When analysed over a white background, mean ΔE 00 values were highly significantly different and varied from 0.8 (Ceram X Duo/air) to 20.9 (Ceram X Duo/red wine). When analysed over a black background, mean ΔE 00 values were highly significantly different and varied from 1.0 (Ceram X Duo and Tetric/air) to 25.2 (Ceram X Duo/red wine). Differences in translucency varied from 0.3 (Ceram X Duo/air) to 21.1 (Ceram X Duo/juice). The correlation between ΔE and ΔE 00 over a white background was 0.9928, while over a black background, it was 0.9886.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Compomer; Methacrylate; Ormocer; Silorane; Staining

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26178651     DOI: 10.1007/s10266-015-0212-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Odontology        ISSN: 1618-1247            Impact factor:   2.634


  35 in total

1.  Raman scattering determination of the depth of cure of light-activated composites: influence of different clinically relevant parameters.

Authors:  G Leloup; P E Holvoet; S Bebelman; J Devaux
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.837

2.  Surface roughness of packable composite resins polished with various systems.

Authors:  Alessandra Bühler Borges; Ana Lucia Marsilio; Clóvis Pagani; José Roberto Rodrigues
Journal:  J Esthet Restor Dent       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.843

3.  Influence of window size in small-window colour measurement, particularly of teeth.

Authors:  R A Bolt; J J Bosch; J C Coops
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Staining of resin-based veneering materials with coffee and tea.

Authors:  C M Um; I E Ruyter
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 1.677

5.  The in vitro color stability of acrylic resins for provisional restorations.

Authors:  R Scotti; S C Mascellani; F Forniti
Journal:  Int J Prosthodont       Date:  1997 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.681

6.  Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion during the setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins.

Authors:  J L Ferracane
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  1985-02       Impact factor: 5.304

7.  Resistance to extrinsic strains by hydrophobic composite resin systems.

Authors:  W H Douglas; R G Craig
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 6.116

8.  Relation of finish to discoloration of composite resins.

Authors:  Y Hachiya; M Iwaku; H Hosoda; T Fusayama
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 3.426

9.  Iron discoloration of acrylic resin exposed to chlorhexidine or tannic acid: a model study.

Authors:  H Nordbö; A Attramadal; H M Eriksen
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 3.426

10.  Celluloid strip-finished versus polished composite surface: difference in surface discoloration in microhybrid composites.

Authors:  S H Park; B D Noh; H J Ahn; H K Kim
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.837

View more
  6 in total

1.  Color stability of nanohybrid resin-based composites, ormocers and compomers.

Authors:  Carmen Llena; Sarai Fernández; Leopoldo Forner
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-05-16       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Effect of erosive challenge with HCl on restorative materials.

Authors:  Amanda Endres Willers; Thaís Bulzoni Branco; Beatriz Ometto Sahadi; Juliana Jendiroba Faraoni; Regina Guenka Palma Dibb; Marcelo Giannini
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 3.606

Review 3.  Translucency changes of direct esthetic restorative materials after curing, aging and treatment.

Authors:  Yong-Keun Lee
Journal:  Restor Dent Endod       Date:  2016-07-14

4.  Color stability of esthetic restorative materials: a spectrophotometric analysis.

Authors:  Claudio Poggio; Matteo Ceci; Riccardo Beltrami; Maria Mirando; Jaffal Wassim; Marco Colombo
Journal:  Acta Biomater Odontol Scand       Date:  2016-08-10

5.  Color stability of Lucirin-photo-activated resin composite after immersion in different staining solutions: a spectrophotometric study.

Authors:  Rasha AlSheikh
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2019-09-05

6.  Discoloration of different esthetic restorative materials: A spectrophotometric evaluation.

Authors:  Matteo Ceci; Matteo Viola; Davide Rattalino; Riccardo Beltrami; Marco Colombo; Claudio Poggio
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2017 Apr-Jun
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.