File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Contrast ratios and masking ability of three types of ceramic veneers

TitleContrast ratios and masking ability of three types of ceramic veneers
Authors
Issue Date2007
PublisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/prosdent
Citation
Journal Of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2007, v. 98 n. 5, p. 359-364 How to Cite?
AbstractStatement of problem: Although ceramic veneers have been proven to be clinically successful in longevity studies, there is little information on the contrast ratios and masking ability of the available ceramic systems because dental laboratory technology and expensive experimental equipment are required for the investigation. Moreover, the complexity in understanding how to evaluate translucent ceramic materials may also explain why information in this area is limited. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the contrast ratios and masking abilities of 3 types of all-ceramic veneers by measuring their luminance and color difference over white and black backgrounds. Material and methods: Disk-shaped specimens (8-mm diameter × 0.7-mm thickness) of Shade A2 (Vita Lumin) of 3 types of all-ceramic systems: Procera (n=8), Empress 2 (n=8), and Vitadur Alpha (n=10) were fabricated. The luminance (as Y) and color (as CIE L*a*b*) of the specimens were measured with a colorimeter. The contrast ratio (CR=Yb/Yw), defined as the ratio of illuminance (Y) of the test material when it is placed on the black background (Yb) to the illuminance of the same material when it is placed over a white background (Yw), was determined. The masking ability of a specimen was evaluated by calculating the color difference (ΔE) of the veneers over white and black backgrounds. Both CR and ΔE* data were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). Results: The mean contrast ratios (SD) of Procera, Empress 2, and Vitadur Alpha specimens were 0.50 (0.02), 0.46 (0.05), and 0.39 (0.02), respectively. CR values were significantly different among the 3 materials (P<.001). Procera veneers had a significantly higher CR compared to Empress 2 (P=.01) or Vitadur Alpha (P=.01), whereas the CR of Empress 2 was significantly higher than that of Vitadur Alpha (P=.046). Color difference (ΔE*) (SD) of Procera, Empress 2, and Vitadur Alpha specimens over black and white backgrounds were 24.46 (1.03), 25.80 (1.03), and 31.08 (1.19), respectively. ΔE* values were statistically different among the 3 materials (P<.001). Vitadur Alpha specimens had significantly higher ΔE* when compared with Procera (P<.001) or Empress 2 (P<.001), whereas ΔE* values between Procera and Empress 2 were not significantly different (P=.331). Conclusions: Vitadur Alpha had significantly lower contrast ratio and poorer masking ability compared to Procera or Empress 2. The clinical application of Vitadur Alpha as a veneer material over discolored teeth is cautioned. Although the contrast ratio of Procera was significantly higher than that of Empress 2, the masking abilities of these materials were not significantly different. The clinical application of these 2 ceramics as a veneer material may still be limited when applied over intense tooth discoloration because neither can fully mask the color of a black background. (J Prosthet Dent 2007; 98:359-364). © 2007 The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/67180
ISSN
2014 Impact Factor: 1.753
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.507
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChu, FCSen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChow, TWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChai, Jen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T05:52:38Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T05:52:38Z-
dc.date.issued2007en_HK
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2007, v. 98 n. 5, p. 359-364en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0022-3913en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/67180-
dc.description.abstractStatement of problem: Although ceramic veneers have been proven to be clinically successful in longevity studies, there is little information on the contrast ratios and masking ability of the available ceramic systems because dental laboratory technology and expensive experimental equipment are required for the investigation. Moreover, the complexity in understanding how to evaluate translucent ceramic materials may also explain why information in this area is limited. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the contrast ratios and masking abilities of 3 types of all-ceramic veneers by measuring their luminance and color difference over white and black backgrounds. Material and methods: Disk-shaped specimens (8-mm diameter × 0.7-mm thickness) of Shade A2 (Vita Lumin) of 3 types of all-ceramic systems: Procera (n=8), Empress 2 (n=8), and Vitadur Alpha (n=10) were fabricated. The luminance (as Y) and color (as CIE L*a*b*) of the specimens were measured with a colorimeter. The contrast ratio (CR=Yb/Yw), defined as the ratio of illuminance (Y) of the test material when it is placed on the black background (Yb) to the illuminance of the same material when it is placed over a white background (Yw), was determined. The masking ability of a specimen was evaluated by calculating the color difference (ΔE) of the veneers over white and black backgrounds. Both CR and ΔE* data were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). Results: The mean contrast ratios (SD) of Procera, Empress 2, and Vitadur Alpha specimens were 0.50 (0.02), 0.46 (0.05), and 0.39 (0.02), respectively. CR values were significantly different among the 3 materials (P<.001). Procera veneers had a significantly higher CR compared to Empress 2 (P=.01) or Vitadur Alpha (P=.01), whereas the CR of Empress 2 was significantly higher than that of Vitadur Alpha (P=.046). Color difference (ΔE*) (SD) of Procera, Empress 2, and Vitadur Alpha specimens over black and white backgrounds were 24.46 (1.03), 25.80 (1.03), and 31.08 (1.19), respectively. ΔE* values were statistically different among the 3 materials (P<.001). Vitadur Alpha specimens had significantly higher ΔE* when compared with Procera (P<.001) or Empress 2 (P<.001), whereas ΔE* values between Procera and Empress 2 were not significantly different (P=.331). Conclusions: Vitadur Alpha had significantly lower contrast ratio and poorer masking ability compared to Procera or Empress 2. The clinical application of Vitadur Alpha as a veneer material over discolored teeth is cautioned. Although the contrast ratio of Procera was significantly higher than that of Empress 2, the masking abilities of these materials were not significantly different. The clinical application of these 2 ceramics as a veneer material may still be limited when applied over intense tooth discoloration because neither can fully mask the color of a black background. (J Prosthet Dent 2007; 98:359-364). © 2007 The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/prosdenten_HK
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Prosthetic Dentistryen_HK
dc.rightsJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Copyright © Mosby, Inc.en_HK
dc.subject.meshColoren_HK
dc.subject.meshColorimetry - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Materials - chemistryen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Porcelain - chemistryen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Veneersen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshLithium Compounds - chemistryen_HK
dc.subject.meshMetal Ceramic Alloys - chemistryen_HK
dc.subject.meshTitanium - chemistryen_HK
dc.subject.meshTooth Discoloration - therapyen_HK
dc.titleContrast ratios and masking ability of three types of ceramic veneersen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0022-3913&volume=98&issue=5&spage=359&epage=364&date=2007&atitle=Contrast+ratios+and+masking+ability+of+three+types+of+ceramic+veneersen_HK
dc.identifier.emailChu, FCS: cschu@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailChow, TW: twchow@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChu, FCS=rp00035en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChow, TW=rp00009en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60120-6en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid18021824-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-36048998483en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros138982en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-36048998483&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume98en_HK
dc.identifier.issue5en_HK
dc.identifier.spage359en_HK
dc.identifier.epage364en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000251631400005-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChu, FCS=7201881096en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChow, TW=7203012369en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChai, J=7202678911en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats