Quintessence Int 41 (2010), No. 10 6. Oct. 2010
Quintessence Int 41 (2010), No. 10 (06.10.2010)
Page 837-844, PubMed:20927420
Optical integration and fluorescence: A comparison among restorative materials with spectrophotometric analysis
Lefever, Dorien / Mayoral, Juan Ricardo / Mercade, Montse / Basilio, Juan / Roig, Miguel
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 ΔE 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 ΔE 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.
Keywords: Class 4, composite resin, fluorescence, incisoproximal restoration, optical integration, ormocer, spectrophotometric