Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2020;28:e20190693. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2019-0693. Epub 2020 May 11.
Debonding, staining and wear are usually the reasons for denture teeth replacement by new ones from same or different brands. Objective This study investigates the possible differences in color of denture teeth of the same or different brands under different illuminations, since their metameric behavior in color under specific illumination may become unacceptable. Methodology For the purpose of this study, 10 denture teeth (#11), shade A3, of 4 different brands were selected (Creopal/KlemaDental Pro, Executive/DeguDent, Cosmo HXL/DeguDent, Ivostar/Ivoclar-Vivadent). Teeth stabilized in white silicone mold and the CIELAB color coordinates of their labial surface under 3 different illumination lights (D65, F2, A) were recorded, using a portable colorimeter (FRU/WR-18, Wave Inc). ΔEab values of all possible pairs of teeth of the same brand (n=45) or pair combinations of different brands (n=100) under each illumination light, in a dry and wet state were calculated. Data were analyzed statistically using 3-way ANOVA, Friedman's and Wilcoxon's tests at a significance level of α=0.05. Results The results showed that brand type affected significantly L, a* and b* coordinates (p<0.0001), illumination a* and b* coordinates (p<0.0001), but none of them was affected by the hydration state of teeth (p>0.05). Intra-brand color differences ranged between 0.21-0.78ΔΕ* units with significant differences among brands (p<0.0001), among illumination lights (p<0.0001) and between hydration states (p=0.0001). Inter-brand differences ranged between 2.29-6.29ΔΕ* units with significant differences among pairs of brands (p<0.0001), illumination lights (p<0.0001) and hydration states (p<0.0001). Conclusions Differences were found between and within brands under D65 illumination which increased under F2 or A illumination affected by brand type and hydration status. Executive was the most stable brand than the others under different illuminations or wet states and for this reason its difference from other brands is the lowest. In clinical practice, there should be no blending of teeth of different brands but if we must, we should select those that are more stable under different illuminations.
去胶、染色和磨损通常是义齿更换的原因,这些义齿可以来自同一品牌或不同品牌。目的 本研究旨在探讨不同品牌的义齿在不同光照下颜色可能存在的差异,因为在特定光照下,它们的颜色的同色异谱行为可能变得不可接受。方法 为此目的,选择了 4 个不同品牌(Creopal/KlemaDental Pro、Executive/DeguDent、Cosmo HXL/DeguDent、Ivostar/Ivoclar-Vivadent)的 10 颗义齿(#11,A3 色)。将牙齿稳定在白色硅树脂模具中,并使用便携式色度计(FRU/WR-18,Wave Inc)记录其唇面在 3 种不同照明光源(D65、F2、A)下的 CIELAB 颜色坐标。计算每个照明光源下同一品牌(n=45)或不同品牌配对组合(n=100)所有可能牙齿对的 ΔEab 值,在干燥和湿润状态下。使用三因素方差分析、Friedman 检验和 Wilcoxon 检验对数据进行统计学分析,显著性水平为 α=0.05。结果 结果表明,品牌类型显著影响 L、a和 b坐标(p<0.0001)、照明的 a和 b坐标(p<0.0001),但不影响牙齿的水合状态(p>0.05)。同一品牌的颜色差异在 0.21-0.78ΔΕ单位之间,品牌之间有显著差异(p<0.0001),照明之间有显著差异(p<0.0001),水合状态之间有显著差异(p=0.0001)。不同品牌之间的差异在 2.29-6.29ΔΕ单位之间,品牌之间有显著差异(p<0.0001)、照明之间有显著差异(p<0.0001)、水合状态之间有显著差异(p<0.0001)。结论 D65 光照下不同品牌之间和品牌内存在差异,在 F2 或 A 光照下差异增加,受品牌类型和水合状态的影响。Executive 是不同光照或湿润状态下最稳定的品牌,因此它与其他品牌的差异最低。在临床实践中,不同品牌的义齿不应混合使用,但如果必须混合使用,应选择在不同光照下更稳定的义齿。