Color compatibility between dental structures and three different types of ceramic systems

BACKGROUND: To assess color compatibility between dental structures (human enamel and dentine) and three different types of ceramic systems. METHODS: Samples (1 and 2 mm-thick) of extracted tooth (containing dentine and enamel areas) and three ceramic systems with different shades and opacities (HT–High Translucent, T–Translucent) were prepared for this study: Vita Suprinity—VS (HT, T; A1, A2, A3, A3.5, B2, C2, D2) (Vita Zahnfabrik); Vita Enamic—VE (HT, T; 1M1, 1M2, 2M2, 3M2) (Vita Zahnfabrik) and Noritake Super Porcelain EX-3—NKT (A1, A2, A3, A3.5, B2, C2, D2) (Kuraray Noritake Dental). Reflectance measurements of all samples were performed over black backgrounds using a non-contact spectroradiometer (SpectraScan PR-670, Photo Research) under a CIE 45°/0° geometry. CIE L*a*b* color parameters were measured and CIELAB/CIEDE2000 color differences (ΔE(00)/ΔE(*)(ab)) and corresponding Coverage Error (CE) of ceramic system for dentine or enamel samples were calculated. Color data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc multiple comparisons tests. CE values were interpreted by comparisons with available 50:50% acceptability color threshold (AT) for dentistry. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in lightness were found among all ceramic systems and human dentine (p < 0.001), while no significant differences were registered between enamel and VSHT, T and VEHT. 1 mm dentine showed no statistical differences with VST and VSHT for a* coordinate, while 2 mm dentine showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) with VEHT. Thin samples (1 mm) of dentine and enamel showed significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) for b* coordinate with less translucent materials (NKT, VET and VST). For dentine samples, none of the ceramic materials provided a CE lower than AT. VSHT provided the best CE for 1 mm-thick (CE(00) = 1.7, CE(ab) = 1.9) and for 2 mm-thick (CE(00) = 2.3; CE(ab) = 2.5) enamel samples. CONCLUSIONS: Color coordinates of evaluated esthetic ceramic systems were statistically different from those of human dentine in almost all cases. The evaluated ZrO(2) lithium silicate glass–ceramic (VS), with its two levels of translucency, provided lower CE values with human enamel samples while conventional feldspathic ceramic (NKT) and hybrid ceramic systems (VE) demonstrated a better color compatibility with dentin samples.