In Vitro Evaluation and Comparison of the Translucency of Two Different All-Ceramic Systems.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the translucency of two different all-ceramic systems using Vita Easyshade digital shade matching device in an in vitro model.


METHODS
Translucency of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max Press) and zirconia all-ceramic system (Ceramill ZI) were evaluated and compared. A total of 5 square-shaped specimens with 0.5 mm thickness were fabricated from each ceramic system in A1 shade according to Vitapan Classical shade tab. Specimens were then veneered and glazed with corresponding veneer ceramics recommended by each system manufacturer and the total thickness was set to 1.5 mm. Translucency was evaluated using VITA Easyshade in two stages: before and after veneering and glazing on black and white background. Translucency parameter (TP) was calculated. A one-way ANOVA and Bonferonni tests were used when appropriate (α=0.05).


RESULTS
Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic was significantly more translucent than the zirconia system in both stages (P<0.05). Translucency of all specimens was significantly decreased after veneering and glazing in both all-ceramic systems (P<0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
The translucency of two different dental ceramics was significantly influenced by both material and stages of preparation. Within the limitations of the experiment, these results can be valuable and help the clinician to make appropriate esthetic decisions.
- Dental polyclinic Jurišić, Kneza Branimira 11, 88000 Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Sanja
S
Jurišić
- Dental polyclinic Jurišić, Kneza Branimira 11, 88000 Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Gordan
G
Jurišić
Department of Removable Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gundulićeva 5, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
Dubravka Knezović
DK
Zlatarić
dental shade-matching device; glass-ceramics; tooth color; translucency; zirconia
Acta Odontol Scand. 2009;67(1):57-64
19037822
J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Jan;75(1):18-32
9005250
Dent Mater. 2011 Jan;27(1):97-108
21122905
J Dent. 2010 May;38(5):361-8
20122985
Dent Mater. 2013 Jun;29(6):702-7
23618557
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):618-24
24840909
J Dent. 2010;38 Suppl 2:e71-7
20732382
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Dec;90(6):563-70
14668757
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Jul;110(1):14-20
23849609
J Prosthet Dent. 2010 Jul;104(1):6-12
20620365
J Adv Prosthodont. 2013 May;5(2):161-6
23755342
Dent Clin North Am. 1985 Oct;29(4):667-72
3865830
Int J Prosthodont. 1995 Jan-Feb;8(1):79-86
7710631
J Adv Prosthodont. 2014 Feb;6(1):8-13
24605200
J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Jul;88(1):10-5
12239473
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006 Feb;26(1):31-41
16515094
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011 Nov;22(11):2429-35
21922331
J Adv Prosthodont. 2014 Oct;6(5):415-22
25352964
J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Feb;105(2):83-90
21262405
J Prosthet Dent. 2011 May;105(5):304-7
21530755
J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Jul;88(1):4-9
12239472
Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2007 Jan-Mar;20(1 Suppl 1):9-12
17897494
J Dent. 2007 Nov;35(11):819-26
17825465
Acta Odontol Scand. 2014 Nov;72(8):623-9
24773131
Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1997 Jun-Jul;9(5):567-74; quiz 576
9550082
J Prosthet Dent. 2007 May;97(5):279-86
17547946
Acta Odontol Scand. 2008 Oct;66(5):262-7
18645687
J Dent. 2012 Dec;40 Suppl 2:e34-40
22960460