Giti Rashin, Barfei Amirhossein, Mohaghegh Mina
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Undergraduate Student, Student Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Saudi Dent J. 2019 Apr;31(2):284-289. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.02.045. Epub 2019 Mar 8.
This study aimed to evaluate the influence of different shades and brands of resin-based luting agents on the final color of a leucite-reinforced veneering ceramic.
This in-vitro study was done on 36 ceramic discs (IPS Empress I, 11 × 0.5 mm, A2 shade) and 36 cement disks (11 × 0.2 mm) made of Panavia SA Cement Plus (Kuraray Medical Inc.) and Choice2 (Bisco Inc., Schumburg) brands in translucent, universal A2, and opaque shades (n = 6 per each color in each resin cement brand). Color parameters (CIELab) of ceramic specimens were calculated without and with each brand/shade of resin-based luting agents by using a spectrophotometer, and put into CIELab formula. The color differences (ΔE) between the two sets of measurements were calculated and analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05).
Both the resin-based luting agent shade (P < 0.001) and brand (P = 0.023) significantly affected the color differences. ΔE values were significantly different between Panavia-opaque and Choice2-opaque (P < 0.001). No significant difference existed between ΔE of the two brands in A2 (P = 0.178) and translucent shades (P = 0.079). The ΔE values of Panavia-A2 was significantly different from the translucent and opaque shades of the same brand. Moreover, the ΔE of Choice2-translucent shade was significantly lower than that of A2 and opaque shades. The ΔE values were higher than the clinically-acceptable threshold in all groups (ΔE > 3.7) except for Choice2-translucent (ΔE = 3.37).
The final color of leucite-reinforced veneering ceramic can be affected by the same shades of resin-based luting agents from different brands and different shades of resin-based luting agents from the same brand.
本研究旨在评估不同色度和品牌的树脂类粘结剂对白榴石增强饰面陶瓷最终颜色的影响。
本体外研究使用了36个陶瓷盘（义获嘉瓷块一代，11×0.5毫米，A2色度）和36个粘结剂盘（11×0.2毫米），粘结剂盘由帕娜碧亚SA超强粘结剂（可乐丽医疗株式会社）和Choice2（必思科公司，绍姆堡）品牌制成，有半透明、通用A2和不透明色度（每个树脂粘结剂品牌的每种颜色n = 6）。使用分光光度计计算陶瓷试样在不使用和使用每种品牌/色度的树脂类粘结剂时的颜色参数（CIELab），并代入CIELab公式。计算两组测量值之间的颜色差异（ΔE），并采用双向方差分析和Tukey事后检验进行分析（α = 0.05）。
树脂类粘结剂的色度（P < 0.001）和品牌（P = 0.023）均对颜色差异有显著影响。帕娜碧亚不透明色度与Choice2不透明色度之间的ΔE值有显著差异（P < 0.001）。两种品牌在A2色度（P = 0.178）和半透明色度（P = 0.079）下的ΔE值无显著差异。帕娜碧亚A2色度的ΔE值与同一品牌的半透明和不透明色度有显著差异。此外，Choice2半透明色度的ΔE值显著低于A2色度和不透明色度。除Choice2半透明色度（ΔE = 3.37）外，所有组的ΔE值均高于临床可接受阈值（ΔE > 3.7）。
白榴石增强饰面陶瓷的最终颜色会受到不同品牌相同色度以及同一品牌不同色度的树脂类粘结剂的影响。
