4.2 Article

Optical properties of contemporary monolithic CAD-CAM restorative materials at different thicknesses

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12382

关键词

esthetic dentistry; monolithic materials; translucency

资金

  1. Scientific Research Projects Committee of Near East University [CE247-2016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective This study evaluated the optical properties of contemporary monolithic CAD-CAM materials with different chemical compositions. Materials and methodsResultsTotally, 210 rectangular-shaped, A2 shade specimens (12 x 14 mm) were fabricated from VITA Suprinity T, VITA Enamic T, VITA Mark II, GC Cerasmart LT, Lava Ultimate LT, IPS e.max CAD LT and Prettau Anterior blocks and polished to thicknesses of 0.50.01 and 1.00.01 mm (n=15 each material). A dental spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade Compact) was used to calculate the translucency parameter (TP) and opalescence parameter (OP) values of all tested materials. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance, multiple comparison Tukey's test and independent samples t-test (P=.05). In the 0.5-mm thickness group, GC Cerasmart and Prettau Anterior had the highest and lowest translucency values, respectively. VITA Suprinity had the highest OP value, whereas VITA Mark II and Prettau Anterior had the lowest OP values. In the 1.0-mm thickness group, GC Cerasmart and Lava Ultimate had the highest translucency, whereas Prettau Anterior had the lowest translucency. VITA Suprinity and Prettau Anterior had the highest and lowest OP values, respectively. ConclusionsClinical SignificanceThe optical properties of monolithic restorative materials were influenced by the type and thickness of the material used. According to the results of this study, monolithic materials with different chemical compositions have revealed different optical properties. To obtain esthetic restorations and provide shade matching with natural dentition especially for anterior teeth, monolithic materials should be carefully chosen.

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

4.2
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