Marta Revilla-León1, Mikhail Umorin2, Mutlu Özcan3, Wenceslao Piedra-Cascón4. 1. Assistant Professor and Assistant Program Director AEGD Program, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas; Affiliate Faculty, Graduate Prosthodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash; Researcher, Revilla Research Center, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: revillaleon@tamhsc.edu. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas. 3. Professor and Head, Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University of Zürich, Switzerland. 4. Affiliate Faculty, Esthetic Dentistry Program, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; Researcher, Revilla Research Center, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Interim dental restorations can be fabricated by using additive manufacturing (AM) technologies. Although dental restoration contours can be easily and accurately fabricated by using computer-aided design (CAD) procedures, protocols for creating predictable color dimensions of AM interim restorations are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare color dimensions of different AM and conventional interim restorative materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disks (N=420) were fabricated by using either conventionally (CNV group) or additively manufactured (AM group) materials. The CNV group was further divided into the subgroups CNV-1 (Protemp 4; 3M ESPE) and CNV-2 (Anaxdent new outline dentin; Anaxdent). AM subgroups included AM-1 (FreePrint temp; Detax), AM-2 (E-Dent 400; Envisiontec), AM-3 (NextDent C&B; NextDent), AM-4 (NextDent C&B MFH; NextDent), and AM-5 (Med620 VEROGlaze; Stratasys). Color measurements in the CIELab coordinates were made by using a spectrophotometer (VITA EasyShade Advance 4.0; VITA) with a standardized photography gray card as a background under room light conditions (1003 lux). Color difference (ΔE*) values were calculated by using the CIE76 and CIEDE2000 formulas. The data were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis test with nonparametric pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Owing to a software error, the spectrophotometer was unable to measure the color of any specimens in the AM-5 subgroup, which was consequently excluded from further analysis. Significant differences (P=.001) between 2 manufacturing groups were found based on the L* variable. All subgroups were significantly different from each other for all 3 variables (P<.001). Pairwise comparisons revealed that all groups were significantly different from each other, except for the AM-1 and AM-2 subgroups, compared with the CNV-1 subgroup for the L* color dimension. The ΔE* values calculated by using the CIE76 formula varied from 6.63 to 23.1 and by using the CIEDE2000 formula from 3.43 to 10.21, suggesting a perceptible and unacceptable color mismatch between the CNV and AM groups. CONCLUSIONS: None of the additively manufactured interim materials tested matched the conventional interim materials in all 3 CIELab color dimensions.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Interim dental restorations can be fabricated by using additive manufacturing (AM) technologies. Although dental restoration contours can be easily and accurately fabricated by using computer-aided design (CAD) procedures, protocols for creating predictable color dimensions of AM interim restorations are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare color dimensions of different AM and conventional interim restorative materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disks (N=420) were fabricated by using either conventionally (CNV group) or additively manufactured (AM group) materials. The CNV group was further divided into the subgroups CNV-1 (Protemp 4; 3M ESPE) and CNV-2 (Anaxdent new outline dentin; Anaxdent). AM subgroups included AM-1 (FreePrint temp; Detax), AM-2 (E-Dent 400; Envisiontec), AM-3 (NextDent C&B; NextDent), AM-4 (NextDent C&B MFH; NextDent), and AM-5 (Med620 VEROGlaze; Stratasys). Color measurements in the CIELab coordinates were made by using a spectrophotometer (VITA EasyShade Advance 4.0; VITA) with a standardized photography gray card as a background under room light conditions (1003 lux). Color difference (ΔE*) values were calculated by using the CIE76 and CIEDE2000 formulas. The data were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis test with nonparametric pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Owing to a software error, the spectrophotometer was unable to measure the color of any specimens in the AM-5 subgroup, which was consequently excluded from further analysis. Significant differences (P=.001) between 2 manufacturing groups were found based on the L* variable. All subgroups were significantly different from each other for all 3 variables (P<.001). Pairwise comparisons revealed that all groups were significantly different from each other, except for the AM-1 and AM-2 subgroups, compared with the CNV-1 subgroup for the L* color dimension. The ΔE* values calculated by using the CIE76 formula varied from 6.63 to 23.1 and by using the CIEDE2000 formula from 3.43 to 10.21, suggesting a perceptible and unacceptable color mismatch between the CNV and AM groups. CONCLUSIONS: None of the additively manufactured interim materials tested matched the conventional interim materials in all 3 CIELab color dimensions.
Authors: Alvaro Della Bona; Viviane Cantelli; Vitor T Britto; Kaue F Collares; Jeffrey W Stansbury Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Duygu Karasan; Juan Legaz; Philippe Boitelle; Philippe Mojon; Vincent Fehmer; Irena Sailer Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 3.485