Tabatabaian Farhad, Habib Khodaei Maliheh, Namdari Mahshid, Mahshid Minoo
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Community Oral Health, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Dec;8(6):449-456. doi: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.6.449. Epub 2016 Dec 15.
This study evaluated the effects of four different cements on the color attributes of a zirconia ceramic.
40 zirconia ceramic disk specimens (0.5 mm thickness, 10 mm diameter, 0.1 mm cement space) were fabricated by a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing system. The specimens were divided into 4 groups of 10 specimens and cemented to composite substrates using four different cements including: Glass Ionomer, Panavia F2.0, Zinc Phosphate, and TempBond. The L, a, and b color attributes of the specimens were measured before and after cementation by a spectrophotometer. Additionally, ΔE values were measured to determine color changes for the groups and then compared with the perceptional threshold of ΔE = 3.3. Repeated Measures ANOVA, Tukey Post Hoc, Bonferroni, One-way ANOVA, and One-sample t-test tests were used to analyze the data. All tests were carried out at the 0.05 level of significance.
Statistically significant differences were detected in the ΔE values for Zinc Phosphate (<.0001) and TempBond (<.0001) groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences in this respect for Glass Ionomer (=.99) and Panavia F2.0 (=1) groups. The means and standard deviations of the ΔE values for Glass Ionomer, Panavia F2.0, Zinc Phosphate, and Tempbond groups were 2.11±0.66, 0.94±0.39, 5.77±0.83, and 7.50±1.16 Unit, respectively.
Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that Zinc Phosphate and Tempbond cements affected the color attributes of the tested zirconia ceramic beyond the perceptional threshold. However, Glass Ionomer and Panavia F2.0 cements created acceptable color changes.
本研究评估了四种不同粘固剂对氧化锆陶瓷颜色属性的影响。
通过计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造系统制作40个氧化锆陶瓷圆盘试件(厚度0.5毫米,直径10毫米,粘固剂间隙0.1毫米)。将试件分为4组,每组10个,使用四种不同的粘固剂粘固到复合基底上,这四种粘固剂分别为:玻璃离子水门汀、Panavia F2.0、磷酸锌粘固剂和临时粘结剂TempBond。在粘固前后,用分光光度计测量试件的L、a和b颜色属性。此外,测量ΔE值以确定各组的颜色变化,然后与ΔE = 3.3的感知阈值进行比较。使用重复测量方差分析、Tukey事后检验、Bonferroni检验、单因素方差分析和单样本t检验来分析数据。所有检验均在0.05的显著性水平下进行。
在磷酸锌粘固剂组(<.0001)和临时粘结剂TempBond组(<.0001)的ΔE值中检测到统计学上的显著差异。然而,玻璃离子水门汀组(=.99)和Panavia F2.0组(=1)在这方面没有统计学上的显著差异。玻璃离子水门汀组、Panavia F2.0组、磷酸锌粘固剂组和临时粘结剂Tempbond组的ΔE值的均值和标准差分别为2.11±0.66、0.94±0.39、5.77±0.83和7.50±1.16单位。
在本研究的局限性范围内,得出的结论是,磷酸锌粘固剂和临时粘结剂Tempbond对测试的氧化锆陶瓷颜色属性的影响超出了感知阈值。然而,玻璃离子水门汀和Panavia F2.0粘固剂产生了可接受的颜色变化。