The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

In Vitro Comparison of Color Matching: Universal Shade Composite Resin vs Multi-shade Conventional Composite

Walaa F Bisharah, Ahmed S Zahran, Mona T Rajeh, Nada A AbdelAleem

Keywords : Color matching, Conventional composite, Esthetic dentistry, Universal shade composite

Citation Information : Bisharah WF, Zahran AS, Rajeh MT, AbdelAleem NA. In Vitro Comparison of Color Matching: Universal Shade Composite Resin vs Multi-shade Conventional Composite. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (11):1039-1044.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3780

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 27-01-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the color matching of OMNICHROMA (OM), a universal shade composite, to the well-established 3M Filtek Z350 composites (FT). Materials and methods: An in vitro experimental study was conducted on 80 freshly extracted permanent teeth, with intact buccal surfaces. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups: Group I OM and groups II, III, and IV (3M Filtek Z350 in shades A3, A3.5, and B2, respectively). Class V cavity preparations were created and restored using the respective composites. Color matching was assessed instrumentally using a spectrophotometer to calculate the color difference (ΔE) values and visually by three trained observers using a standardized visual scoring system. Results: Visual assessments showed no significant differences in color matching across the four groups. However, the ΔE color matching analysis revealed significant differences (p < 0.0001), with OM exhibiting higher ΔE values compared to FT shades A3.5 and B2. No significant difference was found between OM and shade A3. Conclusion: OMNICHROMA demonstrated excellent visual color matching, comparable to the various shades of FT composites. Despite the higher ΔE values observed instrumentally in comparison to shades A3.5 and B2, OM's ability to blend with different tooth shades visually was highly effective. Clinical significance: These results suggest that OM offers a versatile and reliable option for achieving satisfactory esthetic outcomes, reducing the need for multiple shade variations in restorative procedures.

PDF Share
  1. Ertas E, Gueler AU, Yuecel AC, et al. Color stability of resin composites after immersion in different drinks. Dental Mater J 2006;25:371–376. PMID: 16916243.
  2. Klaff D. Achieving the predictable composite resin restoration: The nature of colour. Int Dent SA 2010;12(2):64–77. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Achieving-the-predictable-composite-resin-%3A-the-of-Klaff/2034ae1b6ed20e9be40f153089cb58fe357d5391.
  3. Sturdevant CM, Barton RE, Brauer JC. The Art and Science of Operative Dentistry; 1968. Mosby, Inc. A Harcourt Health Sciences Company 11830 Westline Industrial Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63146.
  4. Gamal WM, Riad M. Color matching of a single shade structurally colored universal resin composite with the surrounding hard dental tissues. Egypt Dent J 2020;66:2721–2727. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2020.36824.1192.
  5. Kampouropoulos D, Gaintantzopoulou M, Papazoglou E, et al. Colour matching of composite resin cements with their corresponding try-in pastes. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014;22:84–88. PMID: 2513 4367.
  6. Davis B, Aquilino S, Lund P, et al. Colorimetric evaluation of the effect of porcelain opacity on the resultant color of porcelain veneers. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:130–136. PMID: 1524633.
  7. Johnston W, Kao E. Assessment of appearance match by visual observation and clinical colorimetry. J Dent Res 1989;68:819–822. DOI: 10.1177/00220345890680051301.
  8. Çapa N, Kazazoğlu E, Çalikkocaoğlu S. Evaluating factors that affect the shade-matching ability of dentists, dental staff members and laypeople. JADA 2010;141:71–76. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0023.
  9. Tokuyama. OMNICHROMA Technical Report.
  10. Ontiveros JC, Paravina RD. Color and shade matching in operative dentistry. In Sturdevant's Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. New York: Elsevier; 2019. pp. 200–218.
  11. Abdelraouf RM, Habib NA. Color-matching and blending-effect of universal shade bulk-fill-resin-composite in resin-composite-models and natural teeth. BioMed Res Int 2016;2016:4183432. DOI: 10.1155/2016/4183432.
  12. Vinay C, Uloopi K, RojaRamya KS, et al. Clinical performance of one shade universal composite resin and nanohybrid composite resin as full coronal esthetic restorations in primary maxillary incisors: A randomized controlled trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2022;40:159–164. DOI: 10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_151_22.
  13. Oliveira H, Ribeiro M, Oliveira G, et al. Mechanical and optical characterization of single-shade resin composites used in posterior teeth. Oper Dent 2024;49:210–221. DOI: 10.2341/22-112-L.
  14. Cruz da Silva ET, Charamba Leal CdF, Miranda SB, et al. Evaluation of single-shade composite resin color matching on extracted human teeth. Sci World J 2023;2023:4376545. DOI: 10.1155/2023/4376545.
  15. Saegusa M, Kurokawa H, Takahashi N, et al. Evaluation of color-matching ability of a structural colored resin composite. Oper Dent 2021;46:306–315. DOI: 10.2341/20-002-L.
  16. Khayat WF. In Vitro comparison of optical properties between single-shade and conventional composite resin restorations. Cureus 2024;16:e57664. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57664.
  17. Porwal P, Shah NC, Batra R, et al. Evaluation of clinical performance and colour match of single and multiple shade composites in class-I restorations: A randomised clinical study. J Clin Diagn Res 2024;18:ZC06–ZC11. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/67400.19391.
  18. Hasanain FA. Effect of ageing, staining and polishing on the colour stability of a single, a group shade and nano fill dental composite: An in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2022;16. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/57606.16627.
  19. Alshehri A, Alhalabi F, Mustafa M, et al. Effects of accelerated aging on color stability and surface roughness of a biomimetic composite: An in vitro study. Biomimetics 2022;7:158. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics7040158.
  20. Leal CdFC, Miranda SB, Alves Neto ELd, et al. Color stability of single-shade resin composites in direct restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Polymers 2024;16:2172. DOI: 10.3390/polym16152172.
  21. Paravina RD, Pérez MM, Ghinea R. Acceptability and perceptibility thresholds in dentistry: A comprehensive review of clinical and research applications. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019;31:103–112. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12465.
  22. Ruyter I, Nilner K, Möller B. Color stability of dental composite resin materials for crown and bridge veneers. Dent Mater 1987;3:246–251. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(87)80081-7.
  23. Pan Q, Westland S. Tooth color and whitening-digital technologies. J Dent 2018;74:S42–S46. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.023.
  24. Wyszecki G, Stiles WS. Color Science: Concepts and methods, quantitative data and formulae. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
  25. Gómez-Polo C, Montero J, Gómez-Polo M, et al. Comparison of the CIELab and CIEDE 2000 color difference formulas on gingival color space. J Prosthodont 2020;29:401–408. DOI: 10.1111/jopr. 12717.
  26. Ebeid K, Sabet A, Della Bona A. Accuracy and repeatability of different intraoral scanners on shade determination. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021;33:844–848. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12687.
  27. del Mar Perez M, Ghinea R, Herrera LJ, et al. Dental ceramics: A CIEDE2000 acceptability thresholds for lightness, chroma and hue differences. J Dent 2011;39:e37–e44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.09.007.
  28. Mahn E, Tortora SC, Olate B, et al. Comparison of visual analog shade matching, a digital visual method with a cross-polarized light filter, and a spectrophotometer for dental color matching. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:511–516. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.02.002.
  29. Pecho OE, Ghinea R, Alessandretti R, et al. Visual and instrumental shade matching using CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color difference formulas. Dent Mater 2016;32:82–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015. 10.015.
  30. de Abreu JLB, Sampaio CS, Benalcázar Jalkh EB, et al. Analysis of the color matching of universal resin composites in anterior restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021;33:269–276. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12659.
  31. Trifkovic B, Powers JM, Paravina RD. Color adjustment potential of resin composites. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:1601–1607. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2260-6.
  32. Douglas RD, Steinhauer TJ, Wee AG. Intraoral determination of the tolerance of dentists for perceptibility and acceptability of shade mismatch. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:200–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2007.02.012.
  33. Alghazali N, Burnside G, Moallem M, et al. Assessment of perceptibility and acceptability of color difference of denture teeth. J Dent 2012;40:e10–e17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.023.
  34. Paravina RD, Westland S, Imai FH, et al. Evaluation of blending effect of composites related to restoration size. Dent Mater 2006;22:299–307. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.022.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.