Conservative Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Oper Dent. 2013 May-Jun;38(3):E1-15. doi: 10.2341/12-085-L. Epub 2013 Jan 17.
The purpose of this study was 1) to compare the translucency of seven different types of composite materials and three different shade categories (dentin, enamel, and translucent) by determining the translucency parameter (TP) and light transmittance (%T) and 2) to evaluate the correlation between the results of the two evaluation methods. Three shades (dentin A3, enamel A3, and clear translucent) of seven composite materials (Beautifil II [BF], Denfil [DF], Empress Direct [ED], Estelite Sigma Quick [ES], Gradia Direct [GD], Premise [PR], and Tetric N-Ceram [TC]) from different manufacturers were screened in this study. Ten disk-shaped specimens (10 mm in diameter and 1 mm in thickness) were prepared for each material. For the TP measurements, the colors of each specimen were recorded according to the CIELAB color scale against white and black backgrounds with a colorimeter and used to calculate the TP value. For the %T measurements, the mean direct transmittance through the specimen in the range between 380 and 780 nm was recorded using a spectrometer and computer software. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed to compare the TP and %T for the composite materials and shade categories. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used for the seven composite materials per shade category and the three shade categories per composite material. The correlation between the two evaluation methods was determined using the Pearson correlation coefficient. All statistical procedures were performed within a 95% confidence level. TP differed significantly by composite material within each shade category (p<0.05) and by shade category within each composite material (p<0.05). %T differed significantly by composite material within each shade category (p<0.05) and by shade categories within each composite material (p<0.05), except for BF and ES. For the two evaluation methods, TP and %T, were positively correlated (r=0.626, p<0.05). These methods showed strong correlation for each composite material except ES (r=0.763-0.992, p<0.05) and moderate correlation for each shade category (r=0.403-0.528, p<0.05).
1)通过测定透光率参数(TP)和透光率(%T)比较七种不同类型的复合材料和三种不同色调类别(牙本质、釉质和半透明)的半透明度;2)评估两种评估方法结果之间的相关性。本研究筛选了来自不同制造商的七种复合材料(Beautifil II[BF]、Denfil[DF]、Empress Direct[ED]、Estelite Sigma Quick[ES]、Gradia Direct[GD]、Premise[PR]和 Tetric N-Ceram[TC])的三个色调(A3 牙本质、A3 釉质和透明半透明),每个材料制备了十个圆盘状试件(直径 10mm,厚度 1mm)。对于 TP 测量,用分光光度计和计算机软件记录每个试件在白色和黑色背景下根据 CIELAB 颜色标度记录的颜色,并用于计算 TP 值。对于 %T 测量,记录在 380nm 至 780nm 范围内通过试件的平均直接透射率。采用双向方差分析(ANOVA)检验比较复合材料和色调类别的 TP 和 %T。对于每个色调类别中的七种复合材料和每个复合材料中的三种色调类别,采用单向方差分析和 Tukey 检验。用 Pearson 相关系数确定两种评估方法之间的相关性。所有统计程序均在 95%置信水平内进行。在每个色调类别内,复合材料的 TP 差异有统计学意义(p<0.05),在每个复合材料内,色调类别差异有统计学意义(p<0.05)。在每个色调类别内,复合材料的 %T 差异有统计学意义(p<0.05),在每个复合材料内,色调类别差异有统计学意义(p<0.05),除了 BF 和 ES。对于两种评估方法,TP 和 %T 呈正相关(r=0.626,p<0.05)。这两种方法对于除 ES 之外的每种复合材料都显示出很强的相关性(r=0.763-0.992,p<0.05),对于每种色调类别都显示出中等相关性(r=0.403-0.528,p<0.05)。