4.6 Article

Optical properties of base dentin ceramics for all-ceramic restorations

期刊

DENTAL MATERIALS
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 165-172

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.001

关键词

Dental ceramics; Optical properties; Transmittance; Reflectance; Opacity; Opalescence; Color

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. The study was conducted to compare the optical parameters of VM7 (R) M-shade base dentin ceramics (VITA, Germany) for all ceramic restorations to the chemical composition across the 3D-MASTER (R) shade system. Methods. Three disc samples, 13 mm diameter and 1.4 mm thickness, were produced for each M-shade following the manufacturer's instructions. Each disc was ground and polished to a thickness of 1.0 mm. Spectral light transmittance and reflectance data were recorded in the visible spectrum under the standard illuminant D65 and 2 degrees observer at 10 nm intervals by using a computer-controlled spectrophotometer. Opacity, translucency and opalescence parameters were determined for each sample. Results. (1) Spectral transmittance and reflectance in the short-wavelength range systematically decreased with increasing chroma number (M1, M2, M3) when compared within the same value (lightness) group. (2) Spectral transmittance and reflectance decreased systematically across the whole visible spectrum with increasing value group number when compared within the same chroma group. (3) Analysis of relationship between chemical composition and various optical parameters for all the samples showed the significant contribution of ZrO(2) and Y(2)O(3) substances to optical properties of the present material. Significance. Systematic variations in optical properties of VM7 (R) M-shade base dentin ceramics were observed throughout the 3D-MASTER (R) shade system and were suggested to be caused by the fine structure of the sample which can interfere with shorter wavelengths in the visible spectrum. (C) 2010 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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