TRANSPARENCY COMPARISON BETWEEN CLASSIC AND 3D TOOTH SHAPE MATCHING SYSTEMS IN DENTISTRY

Công Nhật Nam Huỳnh, Quốc Thoại Kiều

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: In the present study, we used a colorimeter to evaluate the translucency according to CIELAB color system of classic and 3D tooth shade matching systems to provide a comparison table of translucency as a reference tool for dentists and dental technicians in the process of evaluating and accurately comparing tooth color in dental restoration. Method: An in-vitro study was conducted with 2 popular color matching sets Vita Classical (16 shades) and Vita System 3D-Master (26 shades). CIELAB parameters (L, a, b) for the color matching teeth were measured at room temperature with a colorimeter in the middle incisor of the tooth 10 times on white and black backgrounds and then recorded values ​​to calculate and compare the translucency in each system and between the 2 systems. Results: The lightest color groups of both tooth shade systems (A1, 1M1, 3M2, 4M1) had the highest translucency parameter (TP >3). The first colors of each tone group had significant higher translucency than the remaining colors in the same color tone. There was a correspondence in translucency between the two colorimetric systems with a ΔTP difference of 0 - 0.6. Conclusion: This study provides quantitative translucency values ​​of the 2 most popular colorimetric systems in dentistry, as a reference for dentists and dental technicians to record and compare tooth color in the clinic and laboratory most accurately and conveniently

Article Details

References

Kim D, Park SH. Color and Translucency of Resin-based Composites: Comparison of A-shade Specimens Within Various Product Lines. Oper Dent. Nov/Dec 2018;43(6):642-655. doi:10.2341/ 17-228-L
2. Huynh NC, Tran AT, Truong TN, et al. Correlation of resin composite translucency and IOS accuracy: An in-vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. Jun 2024;16(6):e678-e684. doi:10.4317/jced.61620
3. Lee YK. Criteria for clinical translucency evaluation of direct esthetic restorative materials. Restor Dent Endod. Aug 2016;41(3):159-66. doi:10.5395/rde.2016.41.3.159
4. Gomez-Polo C, Gomez-Polo M, Quispe Lopez N, Portillo Munoz M, Montero J. 3D Master Toothguide Is Adequate to Subjective Shade Selection? Medicina (Kaunas). Mar 21 2022;58(3)doi:10.3390/medicina58030457
5. Wang F, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N. Translucency of dental ceramics with different thicknesses. J Prosthet Dent. Jul 2013;110(1):14-20. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60333-9
6. Salas M, Lucena C, Herrera LJ, Yebra A, Della Bona A, Perez MM. Translucency thresholds for dental materials. Dent Mater. Aug 2018; 34(8): 1168-1174. doi:10.1016/j.dental. 2018.05.001
7. Rioseco M, Wagner S. Analysis of color differences between identical tooth shades obtained by a spectrophotometer. International journal of interdisciplinary dentistry. 2021;14:233-236.
8. Preethi Suganya S, Manimaran P, Saisadan D, Dhinesh Kumar C, Abirami D, Monnica V. Spectrophotometric Evaluation of Shade Selection with Digital and Visual Methods. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. Aug 2020;12(Suppl 1):S319-S323. doi:10. 4103/jpbs.JPBS_95_20