4.6 Review

Translucency of Lithium-Based Silicate Glass-Ceramics Blocks for CAD/CAM Procedures: A Narrative Review

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 16, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma16196441

关键词

lithium disilicate; lithium silicate; translucency; contrast ratio; translucency parameter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review focuses on the translucency of lithium-based silicate glass-ceramics (LSGC) used in chairside CAD/CAM materials and the methods used to measure it. A total of 33 English-language papers were selected from the PubMed database for analysis. The study found that IPS e.max CAD, Suprinity PC, and Celtra Duo were the most commonly investigated materials, with A2 being the most frequently examined color. The translucency parameter (TP) was the most commonly used method for measuring translucency.
Amid chairside CAD/CAM materials, the use of lithium-based silicate glass-ceramics (LSGC) has been steadily increasing. This review aims to report on the translucency of these materials and the variables used to measure it. An electronic search was performed within the PubMed database within the period between 2 June 2011 and 11 September 2022. English-language papers investigating the translucency of IPS e.max CAD, Celtra Duo, Suprinity PC, Initial LiSi Block, Amber Mill, N!ce, and CEREC Tessera LSGC CAD/blocks were included in the search strategy. After an initial retrieval of 160 papers, the application of exclusion criteria, and the screening of abstracts and then of full texts, 33 papers were included in the study. The retrieved materials, with different degrees of translucency (LT, HT), were IPS e.max CAD (n = 33), Suprinity PC (n = 8), and Celtra Duo (n = 1). Concerning the examined colors, the most used was A2 (n = 20), followed by A1 (n = 8) and A3 (n = 2). The translucency parameter (TP) was the most used method (n = 30) with respect to the contrast ratio (CR) (n = 11) to assess translucency. Five papers measured both. Several specimens' thicknesses (0.5-4 mm) were investigated, with 1 mm (n = 23) being the most frequently analyzed. While a general tendency could be identified, conflicting results among different papers were reported.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据