Premium
Optical properties of a novel glass–ceramic restorative material
Author(s) -
Blackburn Jackson,
Jackson Tate,
Cook Ryan,
Sulaiman Taiseer A.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/jerd.12809
Subject(s) - cubic zirconia , materials science , color difference , titanium , composite material , ceramic , composite number , dental porcelain , metallurgy , filter (signal processing) , computer science , computer vision
Objective To examine the optical properties of a dental restorative material manufactured from lithium aluminosilicate ceramic and reinforced with lithium disilicate. Translucency and the optical effects of various supporting materials on color were the primary focus. Methods Five 10 × 10 mm samples were prepared in thicknesses of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 mm of both high translucency (HT) and low translucency (LT) versions of the material in shade A3. A spectrophotometer was used to measure the illuminance of the samples with black and white backings in order to calculate contrast ratio (CR) and relative translucency parameter (RTP). A baseline relationship between translucency and material thickness was examined and the effects of composite, titanium, and zirconia abutments on color change were studied. Results No significant findings were identified for RTP or CR between the HT and LT material, regardless of the material thickness ( p = 0.39, p = 0.14, respectively). Regardless of material thickness (HT vs. LT), translucencies (RTP and CR) were significantly different with composite, titanium, and zirconia backings compared to baseline values ( p < 0.0001). Titanium had the most significant decrease in translucency compared to composite and zirconia. There was no difference in ΔE00 between the HT and LT materials ( p > 0.05) regardless of the backing. Titanium had the most significant effect on color of both materials followed by composite then zirconia ( p < 0.0001). Conclusions There is not a clinically significant difference in translucency between the high translucency and low translucency materials. Only zirconia supporting structures produced changes in color that are clinically acceptable. Clinical Significance Understanding the optical properties of glass–ceramic restorative materials aids providers in selecting appropriate materials for optimum esthetic outcomes. The lithium‐aluminosilicate reinforced with lithium disilicate material does a poor job masking supporting structures and resisting color change.