Lee Wei-Fang, Takahashi Hidekazu, Huang Shiun-Yi, Zhang Jia-Zhen, Teng Nai-Chia, Peng Pei-Wen
School of Dentistry, College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 11031, Taiwan.
School of Dental Technology, College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 11031, Taiwan.
Polymers (Basel). 2022 Sep 17;14(18):3891. doi: 10.3390/polym14183891.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of at-home and in-office bleaching agents on esthetic CAD-CAM materials after red wine immersion by measuring their optical properties. Sixty specimens were prepared out of three esthetic CAD-CAM materials: Vita Enamic, Celtra Duo, and Ceresmart (n = 20). All specimens were immersed in a red wine solution, and color measurements were performed. Specimens were randomly divided (n = 10) according to the bleaching procedure (in office, at home), bleaching durations were set to 3 time points, and color measurements were performed. According to the Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE) L* a* b* parameters, CIEDE2000 color differences (ΔE00), translucency parameters (TP00), and whiteness index values (ΔWID) after wine staining and after bleaching were calculated. Data were analyzed using the Mann−Whitney U-test, the Kruskal−Wallis test, and a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (α = 0.05). ΔE00, ΔTP00, and ΔWID decreased with an increase in bleaching treatment. ΔE00 after the final bleaching treatment of in-office bleaching ranged from 1.7 to 2.0, whereas those of in-office treatment ranged from 0.4 to 1.1. All ΔTP00 and ΔWID after the final treatment were below the 50:50% perceptibility thresholds (ΔTP00 < 0.6, and ΔWID < 0.7). Significant differences in ΔE00, ΔTP00, and ΔWID among esthetic CAD-CAM materials were found between CD and CE. In the present study, color recovery after at-home and in-office bleaching appeared to be material-dependent. In-office bleaching showed more effective recovery comparing to at-home bleaching.
本研究的目的是通过测量光学性能，评估家用和诊室漂白剂对红酒浸泡后的美学计算机辅助设计与制造（CAD-CAM）材料的影响。用三种美学CAD-CAM材料制备了60个试样：维他易美（Vita Enamic）、赛拉杜（Celtra Duo）和喜瑞美（Ceresmart）（n = 20）。将所有试样浸入红酒溶液中，并进行颜色测量。根据漂白程序（诊室、家用）将试样随机分为两组（n = 10），将漂白持续时间设置为3个时间点，并进行颜色测量。根据国际照明委员会（CIE）Lab*参数，计算红酒染色后和漂白后的CIEDE2000色差（ΔE00）、透明度参数（TP00）和白度指数值（ΔWID）。使用曼-惠特尼U检验、克鲁斯卡尔-沃利斯检验和双向方差分析（ANOVA）（α = 0.05）对数据进行分析。ΔE00、ΔTP00和ΔWID随着漂白处理的增加而降低。诊室漂白最终处理后的ΔE00范围为1.7至2.0，而家用处理的ΔE00范围为0.4至1.1。最终处理后的所有ΔTP00和ΔWID均低于50:50%的可感知阈值（ΔTP00 < 0.6，且ΔWID < 0.7）。在赛拉杜（CD）和喜瑞美（CE）之间发现美学CAD-CAM材料的ΔE00、ΔTP00和ΔWID存在显著差异。在本研究中，家用和诊室漂白后的颜色恢复似乎取决于材料。与家用漂白相比，诊室漂白显示出更有效的恢复效果。
