Next Article in Journal
Age at League Entry and Early All-Cause Mortality among National Football League Players
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effectiveness of Semi-Automated and Fully Automatic Segmentation for Inferior Alveolar Canal Localization on CBCT Scans: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Body Positivity and Self-Compassion on a Publicly Available Behavior Change Weight Management Program
Previous Article in Special Issue
Digital Quantification of Occlusal Contacts: A Methodological Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 24
10.3390/ijerph182413359
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of CAD/CAM Ceramic Thickness on Shade Masking Ability of Discolored Teeth: In Vitro Study

by
Passent Ellakany
1,*,
Marwa Madi
2,
Nourhan M. Aly
3,
Zainb S. Al-Aql
4,
Maher AlGhamdi
5,
Abdulrahman AlJeraisy
5 and
Adel S. Alagl
2
1
Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 32210, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 32210, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21527, Egypt
4
Dental Sciences, King Abdulaziz Medical City, National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah 22230, Saudi Arabia
5
College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 32210, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(24), 13359; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413359
Submission received: 15 November 2021 / Revised: 11 December 2021 / Accepted: 16 December 2021 / Published: 18 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Three-Dimensional Diagnostic and Planning Tools in the Quality of Clinical Outcomes in Dentistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Shade matching is a common challenge that dentists face during fabrication of esthetic dental restoration. Thus, the aim of the current study was to assess the masking ability of two types of CAD/CAM ceramics for gaining high esthetic prosthesis. This in vitro study used a total sample size of 66 lithium disilicate (LD) and leucite reinforced (LR) CAD/CAM ceramics sub-grouped into three thicknesses: 0.5, 1, and 1.5 mm. Nine shades of natural dentin die materials were prepared as a replica of the underlying tooth structure. The difference in color (ΔE) and translucency parameter (TP) were assessed for both tested ceramics at the three thicknesses. One-way ANOVA was performed to compare the three thicknesses of each ceramic, followed by multiple pairwise comparisons between both ceramics. LR had significantly higher ΔE than LD at all thicknesses used unlike the case in TP. Thickness of 0.5 mm exhibited the highest ΔE and TP, while 1.5 mm thickness showed the lowest ΔE and TP in both ceramics. Increase in ceramic thickness had a great impact on both color masking ability of the underlying tooth structure and its translucency. The higher the ceramic thickness, the better the masking ability and the lower the translucency was reported.

1. Introduction

Fabrication of dental restorations requires fulfillment of functional needs such as mastication, occlusion, speech, and esthetics [1]. Patients are currently greatly concerned with esthetics more than any other factor. This makes fabrication of dental restorations challenging for both dentists and lab technicians to achieve the optimum outcome that satisfies patients’ needs [2].
Dental ceramics are among the most esthetic restorative materials used in dentistry [1,3]. They are characterized by having high compressive strength, resistance to cracking, crack propagation stability, biocompatibility, and optical properties that match natural teeth features [4,5]. The optical characteristics of dental ceramics are affected by several factors; the type and translucency of ceramics, the shade of the underlying tooth structure, and the luting cement [6,7,8]. Recently, digital dentistry has widely spread allowing fabrication of CAD/CAM ceramic restorations that have superior properties such as high translucency and esthetics. This helps in minimizing chairside time, facilitating shade selection and communication between dentist and lab technician, and reducing the fabrication defects produced from conventional fabrication methods such as voids, cracks, and firing problems [9,10,11].
Additionally, digital shade selection can minimize the drawbacks of subjective shade selection that can be affected by a dentist’s own vision, color blindness, surrounding environment (including colors of walls and ceiling and type of light available in the dental clinic), patient’s skin color, age, gender, and the duration consumed in shade selection where extended duration might lead to eye fatigue [12,13,14].
Recent types of dental ceramics enable clinicians to fabricate monolithic esthetic restorations with a conservative tooth preparation achieving the required shade [9]. However, translucency of the restoration depends on the amount of light transmission through the restoration, which is affected by the shade of underlying tooth structure, cement, and thickness of the ceramic used, and its composition [15,16]. Lithium disilicate (LD) and leucite-reinforced (LR) glass ceramics are characterized by high translucency. They are used in fabrication of esthetic monolithic restorations due to the reduced refractive index despite their excessive crystalline composition [11,17]. However, LD is more recommended than LR ceramics as they have better mechanical and optical properties with lower failure rates [11,18].
Limited studies have assessed the clinical influence of dental ceramic thicknesses and composition on the masking ability and translucency of definitive prosthetic restorations [19,20]. Moreover, maintaining a proper balance between translucency and ceramic thickness is crucial especially in cases of dark discoloration of the underlying tooth structure or amalgam restorations [21]. Furthermore, thin ceramic restorations as dental veneers are favorable for several patients that seek high esthetic smile demand; however, their color properties are still sparse [22,23].
The aim of the current study was to evaluate the ability of different ceramic thicknesses of LD and LR CAD/CAM ceramics on masking the underlying tooth structure to achieve optimum esthetics and translucency. The null hypothesis of the current study states that different ceramic thickness and composition do not have a great impact on shade masking ability of underlying discolored teeth.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Samples Preparation

The current in vitro study evaluated the effect of different thicknesses of lithium disilicate and leucite-reinforced CAD/CAM ceramics on the masking ability of underlying discolored teeth. Ceramics used in this study were LD (IPS Emax CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and LR (IPS Empress CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) shade A1 low translucency CAD/CAM ceramic blocks. Both types of ceramic blocks were sectioned into eleven samples of three different thicknesses (0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 1.5 mm thick) using a precision sectioning machine (Isomet 1000, Buehler; Lake Bluff, IL, USA) with a total sample size of 66 (Figure 1).
Polishing of the ceramic specimens was performed using medium grit of silicon carbide discs on a polishing machine (MetaServ 250 Grinder-Polisher with Vector Power Head, Buehler, IL, USA) under wet circumstances. The final thickness of the specimens was measured by a digital caliper (Mitutoyo Corp, Kawasaki, Japan) to be within 0.05 mm thick. Glazing of the samples was performed by applying a thin glazing layer on the surface of one side of every specimen, followed by firing at 403 °C for 1 min then subjected to drying for 6 min. The temperature was increased to reach 770 °C, and then the specimens were placed under vacuum for 90 s. All specimens were washed by distilled water, left to dry then stored in a sealed box at room temperature for measuring color values [19].

2.2. Underlying Background Formation

Nine different shades of natural dentin die materials were prepared in a putty index of 5 mm thickness by incremental condensation of dentin in the form of discs, and polymerization was performed using a light emitting diode (LED) curing unit (Bluephase, soft start mode, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) at an intensity of 1200 mw/cm2 (Figure 2).

2.3. Color Measurement of Different Ceramic Thicknesses

The shade of different thicknesses of both ceramics against the nine shades of natural dentine die were measured by the spectrophotometer (SpectroShade, MICRO, Serial N HDL1407, MHT, Arbizzano di Negrar, Verona, Italy; Crystaleye, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) (Figure 3). Then, each thickness from both types of ceramics used was measured against a white and black background to serve as a positive and negative control using the spectrophotometer. Thereafter, the nine natural dentin dies were placed behind the ceramic specimens of the three thicknesses and color was measured by the same device. A total of 45 color measurements (n = 5 color measurements × 9 dentine shades = 45 readings) were recorded for each 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 1.5 mm thickness of the LD and LR CAD/CAM ceramics. The color coordinates were recorded on the middle of the specimen three times in the form of L, a, and b values and then ΔE value was calculated. The tenth and eleventh ceramic specimens of each thickness of LD and LR ceramics were used in independently recording five translucency readings against white and black backgrounds.
Measurement of color was performed through the use of the CIELAB (L*a*b) [24] color model in the form of color difference where the “L” value refers to lightness or darkness (zero means completely black, 100 means completely white), the “a” value refers to red/green chroma (positive “a” referred to redness, negative “a” referred to greenness), and the “b” value denotes yellow/blue chroma (positive “b” referred to yellowness, negative “b” referred to blueness).
The color difference between the actual color of the ceramic specimen and the specimen after adding a different dentin background was measured using the following equation [25,26]:
ΔE∗ = [(ΔL∗)2 + (Δa∗)2 + (Δb∗)2]1/2
Difference in color (ΔE) recorded <2.6 is considered visually undetectable (ideal shade match). However, if the color difference was found to be more than 3.3, this means that the shade detected is not matching or clinically unacceptable [25].

2.4. Measurement of Translucency Characteristic

The translucency of ceramic specimens was evaluated using translucency parameter (TP) equation. Calibration of spectrophotometer was achieved by applying white. Color coordinates of each sample were independently measured on white and black backgrounds. The color coordinates were measured in the form of CIELAB parameters (L*, a*, and b*) under the same light source used throughout the study [3,27,28].
TP = [(LW∗–LB∗)2 + (aW∗–aB∗)2 + (bW∗–bB∗)2]1/2
where TP: translucency parameter; W: white background; B: black background.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Normality was checked for all variables using descriptive statistics, plots, and normality tests. All variables showed normal distribution, so means and standard deviations (SD) were calculated, and parametric tests were used. Comparison between the two study groups was conducted using an independent samples t-test, while comparison between the different thicknesses of each material was conducted using one-way ANOVA, followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni-adjusted significance level. Two-way ANOVA was performed to determine the influence of material and thickness on color change (ΔE) and translucency parameter (TP). Significance was set at p value < 0.05. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS for Windows (Version 23.0) (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

Table 1 shows that LR had significantly higher ΔE than LD of different thicknesses and against all nine dentin shades (p < 0.05), with the lowest ΔE values against dentin shade 1 and the highest values against dentin shade 9. The lowest mean ± SD ΔE was reported in 1.5 mm thickness LD against natural dentin shade 1 (1.56 ± 0.08), while the highest ΔE was for 0.5 mm thickness LR against natural dentin shade 9 (16.96 ± 0.02).
Table 2 highlights the significant difference in ΔE between LD and LR of different thicknesses (p < 0.05) with higher mean scores for LR material. There was a statistically significant difference between ΔE of different thicknesses of the same material (p < 0.001) with the highest ΔE reported in 0.5 mm and the lowest ΔE reported in 1.5 mm for both materials.
Table 3 and Figure 4 represent the influence of both materials and thicknesses on ΔE adjusted for the differences in natural dentin shade. LR had significantly higher ΔE than LD (adjusted mean = 8.54 and 7.42, for LR and LD, respectively, p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between ΔE of different thicknesses (adjusted means = 12.00, 8.97, and 2.98 for 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 1.5 mm, respectively, p < 0.001).
The middle line of the boxplot represents the median (50th percentile), the box represents the interquartile range (25th and 75th percentiles), and the whiskers represent minimum and maximum values (see Figure 4).
Table 4 and Figure 5 show that LD had statistically higher TP than LR at different thicknesses (p < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between TP of different thicknesses of the same material (p < 0.001), with the highest mean TP reported in 0.5 mm and the lowest in 1.5 mm thickness.
Table 5 represents the influence of both materials and thicknesses on TP adjusted for the differences in natural dentin shades. LD had significantly higher TP than LR (adjusted mean of LD = 29.91 and of LR = 28.36, p = 0.003). There was a statistically significant difference between TP of different thicknesses (adjusted means = 31.91, 25.98, and 25.02 for 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 1.5 mm, respectively, p < 0.001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed a non-significant difference in TP between 1 mm and 1.5 mm thicknesses.

4. Discussion

Color and translucency parameters strongly influence the esthetic outcome of dental restorations [29]. Synchronization of ceramic shade with natural teeth shade is even more challenging because of the underlying background color. The present study evaluated the masking ability of three different thicknesses of LD and LR CAD/CAM ceramics against nine different dentin backgrounds to simulate different clinical situations. A wide range of different shades of underlying substrates were used in the current study to provide greater validation on the masking ability and translucency of dental ceramics, unlike the use of a single shade of composite resin as substrate. Findings show that LD specimens of all thicknesses exhibited higher masking ability than LR, thus, the study hypothesis was rejected.
Sethakamnerd et al. [30] showed that the color of the substrate affects the outcome of the definitive color. This explains using nine different dentin shades as backgrounds in the current study in order to mimic natural dentin color and evaluate their effect on the final color of the prosthetic restoration.
Not all ceramic types and thicknesses effectively masked the black background. These results agree with the findings of Shono and Nahedh [31], who showed that no ceramic could entirely conceal a black background. However, color-masking ability was enhanced when thickness was increased from 1.0 to 1.5 mm, which is in agreement with our findings [31].
The variation abilities among individuals in recognizing color differences was reported in the literature as follows: ΔE less than 1 is undetectable by the human eye, ΔE more than 1, but less than 3.3 is detectable by experts and clinically acceptable, and ΔE more than 3.3 is detectable by patients and unskilled observers and is considered clinically unacceptable [32]. The current results show a significant difference between ΔE of different thicknesses of the same material (p < 0.001) with the highest mean value for 0.5 mm, but decreasing ceramic thickness resulted in higher ΔE values. Mean ΔE for both materials were <3.3 at 1.5 mm thickness (2.62 and 3.27). This means that both evaluated ceramic samples show acceptable values for masking a simulated tooth substrate at 1.5 mm thickness. However, thinner samples show higher ΔE (LD: 11.36, 8.21 and LR: 12.58, 9.51 for 0.5 and 1 mm thicknesses, respectively), indicating poor masking ability. These findings were in agreement with previous studies where ΔE values were significantly influenced by both the ceramic material and sample thicknesses [31,33].
According to the manufacturer’s instructions, it is suggested that at least 2 mm ceramic thickness of LD should be used to mask the effect of the underlying discolored tooth or abutment [32]. However, the current findings show that LD CAD/CAM ceramics of 1.5 mm thickness could provide efficient masking for different shades of the underlying substrate. This finding is important, because in many clinical cases, it is difficult to achieve a 2 mm axial reduction without compromising the strength of the remaining tooth structure. It should be kept in mind that the possibility of achieving maximum esthetics with conservative tooth preparation is a critical factor [34].
Many studies identified TP as the primary factor in controlling aesthetics that affects the selection of veneer materials [16,28,34,35,36,37,38]. Crystals in ceramic matrices tend to control the relative amount of light absorbed, reflected, and transmitted [39]. The higher the number of crystals in a glassy matrix, the lower the reported translucency of the ceramic. In order to obtain a natural-looking esthetic restoration, the TP values of veneer materials should be close to that of natural enamel [40]. The current results show that TP of LD was significantly higher than that of LR. When thickness increased from 0.5 to 1.5 mm, TP decreased for both ceramics as reported in other studies [29,41,42]. The difference in TP between LD and LR could be due to the needle-like crystal structure of LD glass–ceramics, which offer excellent optical properties in addition to the presence of zircon-based pigments that enhance optical properties of ceramics [43]. Moreover, using CAD/CAM ceramic ingots with low translucency was based on previous findings reporting that low translucency LD exhibited better masking ability than high translucency ceramics. The current findings confirm that low translucency ceramic ingots can be chosen to provide better shade matching to natural dentition in an easier and less fabricated time than multilayered ceramics as reported in Pande and Kolarkar [44].
Significant differences were also observed between the TPs of different thicknesses used for both LD and LR. These results agree with previous studies [17,19,41,45,46], which reported that masking ability and shade reproduction of ceramics might be affected by several factors such as thickness, composition, and translucency [47], where LD ceramics represented better translucency when compared to other ceramics [48]. Moreover, Wang et al. [49] measured TPs of zirconia and LD glass-based ceramics at different thicknesses, indicating that both materials and their thicknesses affected the translucency of the ceramic restorations.
The strengths of the current study were the use of a digital shade guide (digital spectrophotometer) by a single trained investigator to provide valid shade readings and exclude any visual variations in shade selections between researchers or within the same researcher. In addition, was the use of nine different natural dentin shades to mimic the various discolorations that could be encountered among natural dentition of various individuals. However, the study had some limitations including carrying out the study in dry in vitro conditions, which do not resemble the oral cavity circumstances of temperature or moisture. Using flattened specimens rather than tooth-shaped veneers might also decrease relevance to the actual clinical situation.

5. Conclusions

LD ceramics exhibited better masking ability and translucency than LR ceramics. The lower the ceramic thickness, the better translucency and less masking ability was shown. Using low translucency monolithic CAD/CAM ceramic blocks might also provide proper esthetic restoration with minimum conservative natural tooth preparation and optimum masking ability.

Author Contributions

P.E. conceptualized the idea of the article and served as the corresponding author. P.E. and M.M. wrote the sections of the article and organized the planning, conducting, and reporting of the work described in the article and drafted the article. N.M.A., A.A., M.A. and A.S.A. participated in writing the methodology, results, and discussions and revising whole sections of the article. N.M.A. performed the statistical analysis of the study, and Z.S.A.-A. participated in the statistical analysis and interpretation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding from any committee.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Research Ethical Committee of College of Dentistry, Imam Ab-dulrahman Bin Faisal University (E.A 2019-052).

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, Y.; Kelly, J.R. Dental Ceramics for Restoration and Metal Veneering. Dent. Clin. North Am. 2017, 61, 797–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Al-Zarea, B.K. Satisfaction with Appearance and the Desired Treatment to Improve Aesthetics. Int. J. Dent. 2013, 2013, 912368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Oh, S.; Shin, S.-M.; Kim, H.-J.; Paek, J.; Kim, S.-J.; Yoon, T.H.; Kim, S.-Y. Influence of glass-based dental ceramic type and thickness with identical shade on the light transmittance and the degree of conversion of resin cement. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2018, 10, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zarone, F.; Di Mauro, M.I.; Ausiello, P.; Ruggiero, G.; Sorrentino, R. Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: A narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2019, 19, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Denry, I.; Holloway, J.A. Ceramics for Dental Applications: A Review. Materials 2010, 3, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Pires, L.A.; Novais, P.M.; Araújo, V.; Pegoraro, L.F. Effects of the type and thickness of ceramic, substrate, and cement on the optical color of a lithium disilicate ceramic. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 117, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Niu, E.; Agustin, M.; Douglas, R.D. Color match of machinable lithium disilicate ceramics: Effects of cement color and thickness. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014, 111, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Chen, X.-D.; Hong, G.; Xing, W.-Z.; Wang, Y.-N. The influence of resin cements on the final color of ceramic veneers. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2015, 59, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Czigola, A.; Abram, E.; Kovacs, Z.I.; Márton, K.D.; Hermann, P.; Borbely, J. Effects of substrate, ceramic thickness, translucency, and cement shade on the color of CAD/CAM lithium-disilicate crowns. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2019, 31, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Furtado de Mendonca, A.; Shahmoradi, M.; Gouvêa, C.V.; De Souza, G.M.; Ellakwa, A. Microstructural and mechanical characterization of CAD/CAM materials for monolithic dental restorations. J. Prosthodont. 2019, 28, e587–e594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Skorulska, A.; Piszko, P.; Rybak, Z.; Szymonowicz, M.; Dobrzyński, M. Review on Polymer, Ceramic and Composite Materials for CAD/CAM Indirect Restorations in Dentistry—Application, Mechanical Characteristics and Comparison. Materials 2021, 14, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Clary, J.A.; Ontiveros, J.C.; Cron, S.G.; Paravina, R.D. Influence of light source, polarization, education, and training on shade matching quality. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 116, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Udiljak, Ž.; Illeš, D.; Knezović Zlatarić, D.; Ćelić, R. Effect of clinical experience on the shade matching accuracy in different dental occupational groups. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2018, 52, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chu, S.J.; Trushkowsky, R.D.; Paravina, R.D. Dental color matching instruments and systems. Review of clinical and research aspects. J. Dent. 2010, 38, e2–e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bagis, B.; Turgut, S. Optical properties of current ceramics systems for laminate veneers. J. Dent. 2013, 41, e24–e30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lee, Y.-K. Translucency of human teeth and dental restorative materials and its clinical relevance. J. Biomed. Opt. 2015, 20, 45002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. McLaren, E.; Giordano, R. Ceramics overview: Classification by microstructure and processing methods. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2010, 31, 682–684. [Google Scholar]
  18. Reich, S.; Endres, L.; Weber, C.; Wiedhahn, K.; Neumann, P.; Schneider, O.; Rafai, N.; Wolfart, S. Three-unit CAD/CAM-generated lithium disilicate FDPs after a mean observation time of 46 months. Clin. Oral Investig. 2014, 18, 2171–2178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Iravani, M.; Shamszadeh, S.; Panahandeh, N.; Sheikh-Al-Eslamian, S.M.; Torabzadeh, H. Shade reproduction and the ability of lithium disilicate ceramics to mask dark substrates. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2020, 45, e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kang, W.; Park, J.-K.; Kim, W.-C.; Kim, H.-Y.; Kim, J.-H. Effects of Different Thickness Combinations of Core and Veneer Ceramics on Optical Properties of CAD-CAM Glass-Ceramics. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 5856482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. dos Santos, R.B.; Collares, K.; Brandeburski, S.B.N.; Pecho, O.E.; Della Bona, A. Experimental methodologies to evaluate the masking ability of dental materials: A systematic review. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2021, 33, 1118–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Xing, W.; Chen, X.; Ren, D.; Zhan, K.; Wang, Y. The effect of ceramic thickness and resin cement shades on the color matching of ceramic veneers in discolored teeth. Odontology 2017, 105, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Tamam, E.; Güngör, M.B.; Nemli, S.K. How are the color parameters of a CAD/CAM feldspathic ceramic of the material affected by its thickness, shade, and color of the substructure? Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2020, 23, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Sterns, E.I. Commission Internationale de L’Éclairage, Colorimetry, 2nd ed.; Commission Internationale de L’Éclairage: Vienna, Austria, 1988; pp. 64–65. [Google Scholar]
  25. Öngül, D.; Şermet, B.; Balkaya, M.C. Visual and instrumental evaluation of color match ability of 2 shade guides on a ceramic system. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2012, 108, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. ElSayad, I.I. Color and translucency of finished and unfinished esthetic restorative materials after staining and bleaching. Saudi Dent J. 2018, 30, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Passos, S.P.; Kimpara, E.T.; Bottino, M.A.; Rizkalla, A.; Santos, G.C. Effect of Ceramic Thickness and Shade on Mechanical Properties of a Resin Luting Agent. J. Prosthodont. 2014, 23, 462–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Johnston, W.; Ma, T.; Kienle, B.H. Translucency parameter of colorants for maxillofacial prostheses. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1995, 8, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  29. Alayad, A.S.; Alqhatani, A.; Alkatheeri, M.S.; Alshehri, M.; AlQahtani, M.A.; Bin Osseil, A.E.; Almusallam, R.A. Effects of CAD/CAM ceramics and thicknesses on translucency and color masking of substrates. Saudi Dent. J. 2020, 33, 761–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Sethakamnerd, P.; Leeviloj, C. Masking ability of two ceramics with different thicknesses on various substrates. M Dent. J. 2017, 37, 233–242. [Google Scholar]
  31. Shono, N.N.; Nahedh, H.A. Contrast ratio and masking ability of three ceramic veneering materials. Oper. Dent. 2012, 37, 406–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Vichi, A.; Louca, C.; Corciolani, G.; Ferrari, M. Color related to ceramic and zirconia restorations: A review. Dent. Mater. 2011, 27, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Dozić, A.; Kleverlaan, C.J.; Meegdes, M.; van der Zel, J.; Feilzer, A.J. The influence of porcelain layer thickness on the final shade of ceramic restorations. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003, 90, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kim, S.J.; Son, H.H.; Cho, B.H.; Lee, I.B.; Um, C.M. Translucency and masking ability of various opaque-shade composite resins. J. Dent. 2009, 37, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Xu, B.; Chen, X.; Li, R.; Wang, Y.; Li, Q. Agreement of Try-In Pastes and the Corresponding Luting Composites on the Final Color of Ceramic Veneers. J. Prosthodont. 2014, 23, 308–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Arif, R.; Yilmaz, B.; Johnston, W.M. In vitro color stainability and relative translucency of CAD-CAM restorative materials used for laminate veneers and complete crowns. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 122, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yu, B.; Ahn, J.-S.; Lee, Y.-K. Measurement of translucency of tooth enamel and dentin. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2009, 67, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, M.-C.; Aquilino, S.A.; Lund, P.S.; Vargas, M.A.; Diaz-Arnold, A.M.; Gratton, D.G.; Qian, F. Human Perception of Dental Porcelain Translucency Correlated to Spectrophotometric Measurements. J. Prosthodont. 2010, 19, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Heffernan, M.J.; Aquilino, S.A.; Diaz-Arnold, A.M.; Haselton, D.R.; Stanford, C.M.; Vargas, M.A. Relative translucency of six all-ceramic systems. Part I: Core materials. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2002, 88, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Joiner, A. Tooth colour: A review of the literature. J. Dent. 2004, 32, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Azer, S.S.; Rosenstiel, S.F.; Seghi, R.R.; Johnston, W. Effect of substrate shades on the color of ceramic laminate veneers. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2011, 106, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bachhav, V.C.; Aras, M.A. The effect of ceramic thickness and number of firings on the color of a zirconium oxide based all ceramic system fabricated using CAD/CAM technology. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2011, 3, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Yuan, K.; Wang, F.; Gao, J.; Sun, X.; Deng, Z.-X.; Wang, H.; Jin, L.; Chen, J.-H. Effect of zircon-based tricolor pigments on the color, microstructure, flexural strength and translucency of a novel dental lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2014, 102, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pande, N.; Kolarkar, M.S. Spectrophotometric evaluation of shade reproduction of pressable all-ceramic system on un-stained and stained tooth: An in vitro study. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2016, 16, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Boscato, N.; Hauschild, F.G.; Kaizer, M.R.; De Moraes, R.R. Effectiveness of Combination of Dentin and Enamel Layers on the Masking Ability of Porcelain. Braz. Dent. J. 2015, 26, 654–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Perroni, A.P.; Amaral, C.; Kaizer, M.R.; Moraes, R.; Boscato, N. Shade of Resin-Based Luting Agents and Final Color of Porcelain Veneers. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2016, 28, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bacchi, A.; Boccardi, S.; Alessandretti, R.; Pereira, G.K.R. Substrate masking ability of bilayer and monolithic ceramics used for complete crowns and the effect of association with an opaque resin-based luting agent. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2019, 63, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Greța, D.C.; Gasparik, C.; Colosi, H.A.; Dudea, D. Color matching of full ceramic versus metal-ceramic crowns—A spectrophotometric study. Med. Pharm. Rep. 2019, 93, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, F.; Takahashi, H.; Iwasaki, N. Translucency of dental ceramics with different thicknesses. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2013, 110, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 18 13359 g001 550
Figure 1. LD and LR CAD/CAM ceramic specimens of 0.5, 1, and 1.5 mm thicknesses.
Figure 1. LD and LR CAD/CAM ceramic specimens of 0.5, 1, and 1.5 mm thicknesses.
Ijerph 18 13359 g001
Ijerph 18 13359 g002 550
Figure 2. Natural dentine die specimens of 9 different shades.
Figure 2. Natural dentine die specimens of 9 different shades.
Ijerph 18 13359 g002
Ijerph 18 13359 g003 550
Figure 3. Shade detection of ceramic specimens using Crystaleye Olympus spectrophotometer.
Figure 3. Shade detection of ceramic specimens using Crystaleye Olympus spectrophotometer.
Ijerph 18 13359 g003
Ijerph 18 13359 g004 550
Figure 4. Color difference (ΔE) of LD and LR at different thicknesses.
Figure 4. Color difference (ΔE) of LD and LR at different thicknesses.
Ijerph 18 13359 g004
Ijerph 18 13359 g005 550
Figure 5. Translucency parameter (TP) of LD and LR at different thicknesses.
Figure 5. Translucency parameter (TP) of LD and LR at different thicknesses.
Ijerph 18 13359 g005
Table
Table 1. Comparison of color change (ΔE) between LD and LR of different thicknesses against nine natural dentin shades.
Table 1. Comparison of color change (ΔE) between LD and LR of different thicknesses against nine natural dentin shades.
ThicknessNatural Dentin ShadeLDLRp Value
Mean ± SD
0.5 mmN17.80 ± 0.057.93 ± 0.050.003 *
N210.06 ± 0.0089.60 ± 0.07<0.001 *
N310.09 ± 0.00910.74 ± 0.07<0.001 *
N410.93 ± 0.0711.59 ± 0.07<0.001 *
N511.37 ± 0.0812.90 ± 0.06<0.001 *
N611.53 ± 0.0713.29 ± 0.03<0.001 *
N712.84 ± 0.0614.62 ± 0.07<0.001 *
N813.41 ± 0.0815.88 ± 0.03<0.001 *
N914.43 ± 0.0616.96 ± 0.02<0.001 *
1 mmN15.56 ± 0.096.34 ± 0.05<0.001 *
N25.84 ± 0.077.05 ± 0.01<0.001 *
N37.42 ± 0.067.72 ± 0.08<0.001 *
N47.91 ± 0.068.46 ± 0.06<0.001 *
N58.00 ± 0.0029.24 ± 0.07<0.001 *
N68.83 ± 0.0610.75 ± 0.06<0.001 *
N79.07 ± 0.00911.41 ± 0.07<0.001 *
N89.92 ± 0.0812.85 ± 0.06<0.001 *
N911.62 ± 0.0913.48 ± 0.03<0.001 *
1.5 mmN11.56 ± 0.082.20 ± 0.02<0.001 *
N21.85 ± 0.072.29 ±0.03<0.001 *
N32.17 ± 0.032.65 ± 0.07<0.001 *
N42.21 ± 0.022.93 ± 0.08<0.001 *
N52.30 ± 0.083.36 ± 0.05<0.001 *
N62.88 ± 0.033.79 ± 0.04<0.001 *
N73.36 ± 0.073.89 ± 0.05<0.001 *
N83.62 ± 0.044.24 ± 0.07<0.001 *
N93.91 ± 0.074.40 ± 0.05<0.001 *
* Statistically significant at p value < 0.05 *.
Table
Table 2. Comparison of color change (ΔE) between LD and LR of different thicknesses.
Table 2. Comparison of color change (ΔE) between LD and LR of different thicknesses.
ThicknessLDLRT-Test
p Value
Mean ± SD
0.511.38 ± 1.91 a12.61 ± 2.81 a0.02 *
18.24 ± 1.82 b9.70 ± 2.44 b0.002 *
1.52.65 ± 0.79 c3.30 ± 0.79 c<0.001*
Average7.42 ± 3.958.54 ± 4.470.03 *
One-way ANOVA
p value		<0.001 *<0.001 *
* Statistically significant at p value < 0.05 *; a, b, and c: different letters denote statistically significant differences between different thicknesses (0.5 mm vs. 1 mm vs. 1.5 mm) within each group using Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels.
Table
Table 3. Two-way ANOVA for association of ceramic material and on color change (ΔE).
Table 3. Two-way ANOVA for association of ceramic material and on color change (ΔE).
Adjusted Mean (SE)95% CIp Value
MaterialLD7.42 (0.07)7.28, 7.57<0.001 *
LR8.54 (0.07)8.40, 8.68
Thickness0.5 mm12.00 (0.09) a11.82, 12.17<0.001 *
1 mm8.97 (0.09) b8.80, 9.15
1.5 mm2.98 (0.09) c2.80, 3.15
Scheme 0. Model F: 608.51, p value < 0.001 *, adjusted R2: 0.96. Model was adjusted for natural dentin shade differences; a, b, and c: different letters denote statistically significant differences between different thicknesses (0.5 mm vs. 1 mm vs. 1.5 mm) using Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels.
Table
Table 4. Comparison of translucency parameter (TP) between the two study groups at different thicknesses.
Table 4. Comparison of translucency parameter (TP) between the two study groups at different thicknesses.
ThicknessLDLRT-test
p Value
Mean ± SD
0.532.53 ± 0.51 a31.29 ± 0.07 a0.005 *
127.99 ± 0.14 b23.97 ± 0.13 b<0.001 *
1.525.80 ± 0.07 c24.23 ± 0.55 c<0.001 *
Average28.36 ± 2.3526.91 ± 4.130.25
One-way ANOVA
p value		<0.001 *<0.001 *
* Statistically significant at p value <0.05; a, b, and c: different letters denote statistically significant differences between different thicknesses (0.5 mm vs. 1 mm vs. 1.5 mm) within each group using Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels.
Table
Table 5. Two-way ANOVA for association of ceramic material and thickness and TP.
Table 5. Two-way ANOVA for association of ceramic material and thickness and TP.
Adjusted Mean (SE)95% CIp Value
MaterialLD29.91 (0.31)26.28, 27.55 0.003 *
LR28.36 (0.31)27.73,29.00
Thickness0.5 mm31.91 (0.39) a31.14, 32.69<0.001 *
1 mm25.98 (0.39) b25.21, 26.76
1.5 mm25.02 (0.39) b24.24, 25.79
Model F: 68.79, p value < 0.001 *, adjusted R2: 0.87. * Statistically significant at p value < 0.05; a and b: different letters denote statistically significant differences between different thicknesses using Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ellakany, P.; Madi, M.; Aly, N.M.; Al-Aql, Z.S.; AlGhamdi, M.; AlJeraisy, A.; Alagl, A.S. Effect of CAD/CAM Ceramic Thickness on Shade Masking Ability of Discolored Teeth: In Vitro Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13359. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413359

AMA Style

Ellakany P, Madi M, Aly NM, Al-Aql ZS, AlGhamdi M, AlJeraisy A, Alagl AS. Effect of CAD/CAM Ceramic Thickness on Shade Masking Ability of Discolored Teeth: In Vitro Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(24):13359. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413359

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ellakany, Passent, Marwa Madi, Nourhan M. Aly, Zainb S. Al-Aql, Maher AlGhamdi, Abdulrahman AlJeraisy, and Adel S. Alagl. 2021. "Effect of CAD/CAM Ceramic Thickness on Shade Masking Ability of Discolored Teeth: In Vitro Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 24: 13359. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413359

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop