Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
November/December 2010
Volume 41 , Issue 10

Back
Share Abstract:

Optical Integration And Fluorescence: A Comparison Among Restorative Materials With Spectrophotometric Analysis

Dorien Lefever, DDS, MsC/Juan Ricardo Mayoral, DDS, PhD/Montse Mercade, DDS, PhD/Juan Basilio, MD, DDS, PhD/Miguel Roig, MD, DDS, PhD

Pages: 837844
PMID: 20927420

Objective: To evaluate the optical integration and fluorescence of three contemporary restorative materials used for incisoproximal restorations. Method and Materials: A microfilled hybrid composite (Amaris, VOCO; MHC), a nanofilled hybrid composite (Grandio, VOCO; NHC), and an experimental ormocer (VOCO; ORM) were used to consecutively restore 10 extracted incisors with incisoproximal restorations using the natural layering concept, mimicking the natural anatomy of the tooth. Before and after placement of each restoration, the teeth were photographed under standardized conditions (direct, indirect, and fluorescent light), and spectrophotometric measurements (SpectroShade, Handy Dental Type 713000, MHT) were made using a black-and-white background. Between measurements, the teeth were allowed to rehydrate for 2 weeks. Ten independent evaluators scored each light condition using an optical integration score on a scale from 0 to 10 (0 = worst optical integration, restoration can be easily distinguished from remaining tissue; 10 = optimal optical integration). Differences in L*a*b and DE values and optical integration scores were statistically analyzed using ANOVA. Results: MHC obtained the highest optical integration and fluorescence scores (P < .01), followed by NHC, although there were no statistically significant differences found among DE of the restorative materials. ORM achieved the worst optical integration and fluorescence. Conclusion: The microfilled hybrid composite obtained the highest optical integration scores (P < .01), followed by the nanofilled hybrid composite. The experimental ormocer showed the least favorable optical behavior. Spectrophotometric measurements showed no statistically significant differences among all three restorative materials. (Quintessence Int 2010;41:837844)

Key words: Class 4, composite resin, fluorescence, incisoproximal restoration, optical integration, ormocer, spectrophotometric

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog