OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the shade match of three composite resin restorative materials to bi-layered acrylic teeth instrumentally and visually. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three composite materials-Omnichroma [OM], Tetric EvoCeram [TE], and TPH Spectra ST [TS] were placed into occlusal preparations (5 mm diameter, 2 mm depth) on 15 bi-layered acrylic teeth per each shade A2, B1, B2, C2, and D3. The composites were placed in a single increment and cured using Bluephase G2 light. The L*, a*, and b* readings were obtained using VITA Easyshade V for the teeth and restorations; mean ΔE00 values were calculated and assessed using two-way analysis of variance with a test of simple effects with multiple comparisons for significance (P < .05). Three teeth were restored to anatomical form with each of the composites for the five shades and were subjectively graded by 30 evaluators as 1-best match, 2-intermediate, and 3-poorest match. RESULTS: In the instrumental evaluation, OM and TS showed lower ∆E00 values for lighter shades, whereas TE showed lower and similar ∆E00 values for all shades. In the visual evaluation, TE exhibited the best shade match for darker shades C2 and D3. OM and TS matched better with lighter shades. CONCLUSION: Shade matching is composite and shade-dependent. Overall, TE matched the multiple shades better than the other two materials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Single and group shade composites displayed shade matching ability inferior to a multi-shade composite material, which may limit their use in highly esthetic clinical situations.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the shade match of three composite resin restorative materials to bi-layered acrylic teeth instrumentally and visually. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three composite materials-Omnichroma [OM], Tetric EvoCeram [TE], and TPH Spectra ST [TS] were placed into occlusal preparations (5 mm diameter, 2 mm depth) on 15 bi-layered acrylic teeth per each shade A2, B1, B2, C2, and D3. The composites were placed in a single increment and cured using Bluephase G2 light. The L*, a*, and b* readings were obtained using VITA Easyshade V for the teeth and restorations; mean ΔE00 values were calculated and assessed using two-way analysis of variance with a test of simple effects with multiple comparisons for significance (P < .05). Three teeth were restored to anatomical form with each of the composites for the five shades and were subjectively graded by 30 evaluators as 1-best match, 2-intermediate, and 3-poorest match. RESULTS: In the instrumental evaluation, OM and TS showed lower ∆E00 values for lighter shades, whereas TE showed lower and similar ∆E00 values for all shades. In the visual evaluation, TE exhibited the best shade match for darker shades C2 and D3. OM and TS matched better with lighter shades. CONCLUSION: Shade matching is composite and shade-dependent. Overall, TE matched the multiple shades better than the other two materials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Single and group shade composites displayed shade matching ability inferior to a multi-shade composite material, which may limit their use in highly esthetic clinical situations.