Color variation of composite resins in relation to the Vita Classical shade guide

Q4 Dentistry
João Vitor Andrade Denadai, R. Zimmer, E. Reston, G. Arossi
{"title":"Color variation of composite resins in relation to the Vita Classical shade guide","authors":"João Vitor Andrade Denadai, R. Zimmer, E. Reston, G. Arossi","doi":"10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8670869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of this study was to verify the color variation between different composite resins and the Vita Classical Shade Guide. Methods: Two-millimeter thickness samples were made (n = 6) from eight commercial brands of composite resin (shade A2): Charisma (Kulzer), Forma (Ultradent), Harmonize (Kerr), Luna (SDI), Opallis (FGM), Oppus Bulk Fill (FGM), Vittra (FGM) and Filtek Z250 XT (3M ESPE). Specimens were stored in distilled water for 7 days and then polished. Color measurements of samples and A2 shade of the Vita Classical Shade Guide were performed using the Vita Easy Shade Advance 4.0 spectrophotometer on a black background. Color variations were calculated using the CIEDE2000 formula, considering values ≥0.81 being noticeable by the human eye and ≥1.77 being clinically unacceptable. Results were statistically analyzed with a 5% significance level. Results: Color variation (ΔE) of composite (E1 ) compared to the Vita Classical Shade Guide (E0 ) was greater than clinically acceptable for all the materials evaluated in this study. Forma (ΔE=2.08 ± sd=0.47) and Filtek Z250 XT (2.50 ± 0.20) had the smallest amount of color variation values found in the results. Harmonize (3.32 ± 0.63) presented values similar to Filtek Z250 XT, but it was worse than Forma. Vittra (3.51 ± 0.28), Charisma (3.80 ± 0.20), Opallis (4.24 ± 0.30) and Luna (5.67 ± 0.20) did not differ among each other and presented higher color variation than Forma, Filtek Z350XT and Harmonize. Oppus Bulk Fill (13.94 ± 1.12) was the composite with the greatest color variation. Conclusions: The findings in this study show that attention should be taken when using the Vita Color Shade Guide for composite shade selection.","PeriodicalId":34984,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences","volume":"12 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8670869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to verify the color variation between different composite resins and the Vita Classical Shade Guide. Methods: Two-millimeter thickness samples were made (n = 6) from eight commercial brands of composite resin (shade A2): Charisma (Kulzer), Forma (Ultradent), Harmonize (Kerr), Luna (SDI), Opallis (FGM), Oppus Bulk Fill (FGM), Vittra (FGM) and Filtek Z250 XT (3M ESPE). Specimens were stored in distilled water for 7 days and then polished. Color measurements of samples and A2 shade of the Vita Classical Shade Guide were performed using the Vita Easy Shade Advance 4.0 spectrophotometer on a black background. Color variations were calculated using the CIEDE2000 formula, considering values ≥0.81 being noticeable by the human eye and ≥1.77 being clinically unacceptable. Results were statistically analyzed with a 5% significance level. Results: Color variation (ΔE) of composite (E1 ) compared to the Vita Classical Shade Guide (E0 ) was greater than clinically acceptable for all the materials evaluated in this study. Forma (ΔE=2.08 ± sd=0.47) and Filtek Z250 XT (2.50 ± 0.20) had the smallest amount of color variation values found in the results. Harmonize (3.32 ± 0.63) presented values similar to Filtek Z250 XT, but it was worse than Forma. Vittra (3.51 ± 0.28), Charisma (3.80 ± 0.20), Opallis (4.24 ± 0.30) and Luna (5.67 ± 0.20) did not differ among each other and presented higher color variation than Forma, Filtek Z350XT and Harmonize. Oppus Bulk Fill (13.94 ± 1.12) was the composite with the greatest color variation. Conclusions: The findings in this study show that attention should be taken when using the Vita Color Shade Guide for composite shade selection.
复合树脂的颜色变化与 Vita 经典色调指南的关系
目的:本研究旨在验证不同复合树脂与 Vita 经典色调指南之间的色差。方法:从八种商业品牌的复合树脂中制作两毫米厚度的样品(n = 6):从八种商业品牌的复合树脂(色调 A2)中提取厚度为两毫米的样品(n = 6):Charisma(Kulzer)、Forma(Ultradent)、Harmonize(Kerr)、Luna(SDI)、Opallis(FGM)、Oppus Bulk Fill(FGM)、Vittra(FGM)和 Filtek Z250 XT(3M ESPE)。样品在蒸馏水中存放 7 天,然后进行抛光。使用 Vita Easy Shade Advance 4.0 分光光度计在黑色背景上测量样品的颜色和《伟特经典色调指南》的 A2 色调。色差采用 CIEDE2000 公式进行计算,认为≥0.81 的值为人眼可察觉值,≥1.77 的值为临床不可接受值。结果以 5%的显著性水平进行统计分析。结果与《Vita 经典色调指南》(E0)相比,本研究评估的所有材料的复合材料(E1)色差(ΔE)均大于临床可接受水平。结果发现,Forma(ΔE=2.08 ± sd=0.47)和 Filtek Z250 XT(2.50 ± 0.20)的色差值最小。Harmonize(3.32 ± 0.63)的数值与 Filtek Z250 XT 相似,但比 Forma 差。Vittra (3.51 ± 0.28)、Charisma (3.80 ± 0.20)、Opallis (4.24 ± 0.30) 和 Luna (5.67 ± 0.20)之间没有差异,颜色变化值高于 Forma、Filtek Z350XT 和 Harmonize。Oppus Bulk Fill(13.94 ± 1.12)是颜色变化最大的复合材料。结论:这项研究结果表明,在使用《伟特色调指南》选择复合色调时应注意以下几点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences is an international non-profit journal, which publishes full-Length papers, original research reports, literature reviews, special reports, clinical cases, current topics and short communications, dealing with dentistry or related disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信