The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 4 ( November, 2005 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Color Differences Between Different Thicknesses of Resin Veneered Over Amalgam

Yousra Hussain Al-Jazairy, Ahmed A. El-Hejazi

Citation Information : Al-Jazairy YH, El-Hejazi AA. The Color Differences Between Different Thicknesses of Resin Veneered Over Amalgam. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005; 6 (4):38-45.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-6-4-38

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-11-2005

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2005; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Statement of Problem

Composites and compomers are popular in dental practice. However, little is known about their esthetic appearance as veneering restorative materials over amalgam restorations.

Purpose

This in vitro study was designed to assess the color differences of composite and compomer restorative materials, placed in thicknesses of 1 mm and 2 mm over amalgam.

Material and Methods

Thirty six cylindrical Teflon molds were filled with amalgam (13 mm diameter, 2 mm thickness) and stored at 37°C and 100% relative humidity for 7 days. Nine veneers (for each thickness of 1 and 2 mm) were fabricated from four types of tooth-colored restorative material, Dyract AP (DYR), Compoglass F (COMP), Herculite XRV (XRV), and Vitalecense (VIT), over amalgam specimens using Teflon-split molds and following the manufacturers’ instructions. A spectrophotometer was used to measure the color difference ΔE* between the two thicknesses.

Results

Color difference ΔE* values for 1 mm thickness veneers [XRV (2.52), Comp (5.46), VIT (6.73), and DYR (6.88)] were statistically significantly higher than the 2 mm thickness [XRV (1.32), Comp (3.24), VIT (4.89), and DYR (4.83)]. Although the XRV material had the lowest ΔE* values, no statistically significant difference was found between the two thicknesses. The color measurements at L*, a*, and b* showed most materials became darker in color at either thickness.

Conclusion

The thicker veneer specimens were found to be closer in color to the controls than the thinner specimens. Only XRV had color differences (ΔE*) small enough to be considered clinically acceptable (2.52 and 1.32 at 1 mm and 2 mm, respectively).

Clinical Implications

In this in vitro study the color of XRV was affected the least when veneered on amalgam. Opaquers may be needed to be used with thinner veneers to minimize the effect of amalgam background.

Citation

Al-Jazairy YH, El-Hejazi AA. The Color Differences Between Different Thicknesses of Resin Veneered Over Amalgam. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005 November;(6)4:038-045.


PDF Share
  1. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2000;25:512-9.
  2. Comparative study of the physical properties of a polyacid-modified composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1999;15:21-32.
  3. Fundemamental of operative dentistry a contemporary approach. 2nd edition. Chicago: Quintessence publishing Co, Inc; 2001. P. 273, 487.
  4. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhesive Dent 2001;3:45-64.
  5. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in UK. Quintessence Int 1999;30:234-43.
  6. Amalgam and mercury toxicity: an update. Tex Dent J 1991;108:25-29.
  7. Amalgam restorations with silicate cement facings for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1970;23:560-1.
  8. Esthetic veneering of amalgam restorations with composite resin– combining the best of both worlds. Oper Dent 1993;18:66-71.
  9. Shear peel bond strength of compomers veneered to amalgam. J Prosthet Dent 2000;82:396-400.
  10. Visual and instrumental colorimetric assessment of small color differences on translucent dental porcelain. J Dent Res 1989;68:1760-4.
  11. Assessment of appearance match by visual observation and clinical colorimetry. J Dent Res 1989;68:819-22.
  12. Visual and spectrophotometric shade analysis of human teeth. J Dent Res 2002;81:578-82.
  13. Recommendation on uniform color, space-color difference and equations psychometric color terms. Paris: Publication No. 2 CE Publication No. 15 (E-1.3.1) 1978;P-12.
  14. An experiment in visual scaling of small color differences. Color Res 1979;4:83-91.
  15. Color stability of new composite restorative material under accelerated aging. J Dent Res 1987;59:2071-4.
  16. Dental Materials and their selection. Quintessence Publication Co. Inc, Chicago, London; 1997. p. 25-30.
  17. Acceptability of shade differences in metal ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:254-60.
  18. Minimum color differences for discriminating mismatch between composite and tooth color. J Esthet Dent 2001;13:41-8.
  19. Color stability of fluoride-containing restorative materials. Oper Dent 2000;25:520-5.
  20. Color stability of compomer after immersion in various media. J Esthet Dent 2000;12(5):258-63.
  21. Optical properties of composites of selected shades. J Dent Res 1982;61:797-801.
  22. Restorative Dental Materials. 9th edition. St. Louis: CV Mosby Publication; 1993. P. 33-35.
  23. Color stability and hardness in dental composite after accelerated aging. Dent Mat 2003;19:612-9.
  24. Optical properties of direct restorative materials. J Dent Res 1981;60: 890-4.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.