Sailer Irena, Holderegger Claudia, Jung Ronald Ernst, Suter Ana, Thiévent Bertrand, Pietrobon Nicola, Gebhard-Achilles Walter, Hämmerle Christoph Hans Franz
Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, University of Zürich, Plattenstr 11, 8032 Zürich, Switzerland.
Int J Prosthodont. 2007 May-Jun;20(3):263-9.
The purpose of this study was to compare 3 veneering ceramics for zirconia frameworks regarding color stability and predictability of the esthetic result.
Six patients with 1 maxillary central incisor to be restored were enrolled in the study. The contralateral incisor had to be nonrestored and vital to serve as a reference tooth. For each patient, 4 single crowns with zirconia frameworks were fabricated. Three veneering ceramics were assessed and masked to eliminate bias. Choice of the veneering ceramics was done at random. The veneering was performed by 4 dental technicians. Three veneering ceramics were compared: ceramic A (Initial, GC), ceramic B (Triceram, Esprident), and ceramic C (Cercon Ceram S, DeguDent). The color of the crowns and reference teeth was captured using spectrophotometric analysis (SpectroShade, MHT), and the color difference (deltaE) was calculated (objective method). In addition, the crowns and reference teeth were compared subjectively by 11 observers blind to the ceramic used for veneering. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Regardless of the veneering ceramic used, all crowns showed a high color deviation from the reference teeth when applying the objective analysis (deltaE(A) 6.8 +/- 2.5, deltaE(B) 5.6 +/- 1.2, deltaE(C) 5.7 +/- 2.1). In addition, no significant differences were found between the deltaE of crowns and teeth for the 3 ceramics. In the framework-supported area, ceramic B showed a significantly lower difference in value (deltaL) compared to the reference teeth than the other 2 ceramics (deltaL(A) 4.9 +/- 2.3, deltaL(B) 1.1 +/- 2.1, deltaL(C) 4.1 +/- 1.5; P < .01 ANOVA). When performing the subjective analysis, ceramic B was chosen as the best match by a majority of observers (> 60%) in 4 of 6 patients.
All 3 ceramics met the esthetic demands only to a limited extent. Ceramic B allowed for the most predictable result in terms of color stability.
本研究的目的是比较用于氧化锆支架的3种饰面陶瓷的颜色稳定性和美学效果的可预测性。
本研究纳入6例需要修复1颗上颌中切牙的患者。对侧中切牙必须未修复且健康，作为对照牙。为每位患者制作4个带有氧化锆支架的单冠。评估3种饰面陶瓷并进行遮盖以消除偏差。随机选择饰面陶瓷。由4名牙科技师进行饰面操作。比较3种饰面陶瓷：陶瓷A（Initial，GC）、陶瓷B（Triceram，Esprident）和陶瓷C（Cercon Ceram S，DeguDent）。使用分光光度分析（SpectroShade，MHT）采集冠和对照牙的颜色，并计算颜色差异（ΔE）（客观方法）。此外，由11名对饰面所用陶瓷不知情的观察者对冠和对照牙进行主观比较。采用方差分析（ANOVA）进行统计分析。
无论使用哪种饰面陶瓷，在进行客观分析时，所有冠与对照牙相比均表现出较高的颜色偏差（ΔE(A) 6.8±2.5，ΔE(B) 5.6±1.2，ΔE(C) 5.7±2.1）。此外，3种陶瓷的冠与牙的ΔE之间未发现显著差异。在支架支撑区域，与另外2种陶瓷相比，陶瓷B与对照牙相比在明度差异（ΔL）方面显著更低（ΔL(A) 4.9±2.3，ΔL(B) 1.1±2.1，ΔL(C) 4.1±1.5；方差分析P <.01）。在进行主观分析时，在6例患者中的4例中，大多数观察者（> 60%）选择陶瓷B为最佳匹配。
所有3种陶瓷仅在有限程度上满足美学要求。就颜色稳定性而言，陶瓷B的效果最具可预测性。
