Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 33 Motilor Street, 400001, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Department of Optics, Faculty of Science, University of Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva, s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain.
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Feb 17;21(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01404-7.
To assess color compatibility between dental structures (human enamel and dentine) and three different types of ceramic systems.
Samples (1 and 2 mm-thick) of extracted tooth (containing dentine and enamel areas) and three ceramic systems with different shades and opacities (HT-High Translucent, T-Translucent) were prepared for this study: Vita Suprinity-VS (HT, T; A1, A2, A3, A3.5, B2, C2, D2) (Vita Zahnfabrik); Vita Enamic-VE (HT, T; 1M1, 1M2, 2M2, 3M2) (Vita Zahnfabrik) and Noritake Super Porcelain EX-3-NKT (A1, A2, A3, A3.5, B2, C2, D2) (Kuraray Noritake Dental). Reflectance measurements of all samples were performed over black backgrounds using a non-contact spectroradiometer (SpectraScan PR-670, Photo Research) under a CIE 45°/0° geometry. CIE Lab* color parameters were measured and CIELAB/CIEDE2000 color differences (ΔE/ΔE) and corresponding Coverage Error (CE) of ceramic system for dentine or enamel samples were calculated. Color data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc multiple comparisons tests. CE values were interpreted by comparisons with available 50:50% acceptability color threshold (AT) for dentistry.
Statistically significant differences in lightness were found among all ceramic systems and human dentine (p < 0.001), while no significant differences were registered between enamel and VSHT, T and VEHT. 1 mm dentine showed no statistical differences with VST and VSHT for a* coordinate, while 2 mm dentine showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) with VEHT. Thin samples (1 mm) of dentine and enamel showed significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) for b* coordinate with less translucent materials (NKT, VET and VST). For dentine samples, none of the ceramic materials provided a CE lower than AT. VSHT provided the best CE for 1 mm-thick (CE = 1.7, CE = 1.9) and for 2 mm-thick (CE = 2.3; CE = 2.5) enamel samples.
Color coordinates of evaluated esthetic ceramic systems were statistically different from those of human dentine in almost all cases. The evaluated ZrO lithium silicate glass-ceramic (VS), with its two levels of translucency, provided lower CE values with human enamel samples while conventional feldspathic ceramic (NKT) and hybrid ceramic systems (VE) demonstrated a better color compatibility with dentin samples.
评估三种不同类型的陶瓷系统与牙体结构（人牙釉质和牙本质）之间的颜色兼容性。
本研究制备了三种不同色调和不透明度的陶瓷系统（HT-高半透明，T-半透明）和含有牙本质和釉质区域的人牙样本（1 和 2 毫米厚）：Vita Suprinity-VS（HT，T；A1、A2、A3、A3.5、B2、C2、D2）（Vita Zahnfabrik）；Vita Enamic-VE（HT，T；1M1、1M2、2M2、3M2）（Vita Zahnfabrik）和 Noritake Super Porcelain EX-3-NKT（A1、A2、A3、A3.5、B2、C2、D2）（Kuraray Noritake Dental）。使用非接触分光辐射计（SpectraScan PR-670，Photo Research）在 CIE 45°/0°几何形状下，对所有样本在黑色背景上进行反射率测量。测量 CIE Lab*颜色参数，并计算陶瓷系统对牙本质或釉质样本的 CIELAB/CIEDE2000 颜色差异（ΔE/ΔE）和相应的覆盖误差（CE）。使用单因素方差分析和事后多重比较检验对颜色数据进行分析。通过与可获得的牙科 50:50%可接受性颜色阈值（AT）进行比较来解释 CE 值。
所有陶瓷系统和人牙本质之间的亮度存在统计学差异（p<0.001），而釉质和 VSHT、T 和 VEHT 之间没有差异。1 毫米厚的牙本质在 a坐标上与 VST 和 VSHT 没有统计学差异，而 2 毫米厚的牙本质与 VEHT 没有统计学差异（p>0.05）。薄样本（1 毫米）的牙本质和釉质在 b坐标上与半透明性较低的材料（NKT、VET 和 VST）有显著的统计学差异（p<0.05）。对于牙本质样本，没有一种陶瓷材料的 CE 值低于 AT。VSHT 为 1 毫米厚（CE=1.7，CE=1.9）和 2 毫米厚（CE=2.3；CE=2.5）的釉质样本提供了最佳的 CE。
在几乎所有情况下，评估的美学陶瓷系统的颜色坐标与人类牙本质的颜色坐标在统计学上都有差异。评估的氧化锆锂硅玻璃陶瓷（VS），具有两种半透明度，与牙本质样本相比，提供了较低的 CE 值，而传统的长石陶瓷（NKT）和混合陶瓷系统（VE）与牙本质样本的颜色兼容性更好。
Zotero 插件
