Exploring the optical behavior and relative translucency parameter of CAD-CAM resin-based composites, polymer-infiltrated ceramic network, and feldspar porcelain
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Arruda Mascaro, Bruno; Tejada Casado, María de la Nativida; García Fonseca, Renata; dos Santos Nunes Reis, José Maurício; Pérez Gómez, María Del MarEditorial
Elsevier
Materia
CAD-CAM materials Kubelka-Munk theory Optical properties
Fecha
2024-11-13Referencia bibliográfica
Arruda Mascaro, B. et. al. Dental Materials 40 (2024) 1954–1961. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2024.09.007]
Patrocinador
Sao Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP) [grant numbers #2022/12430–9, #2022/12431–5, and 2023/15441–4]; Grant PID2022.142151OB.I00 funded by MICIU/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and by FEDER, UE; Grant C-EXP-276- UGR23 funded by Consejería de Universidad, Investigación e Innovación and by FEDER Andalusia Program 2021–2027; Universidad de Granada/CBUAResumen
Objectives: To evaluate and compare the optical properties and relative translucency parameter of CAD-CAM
restorative materials.
Methods: Four CAD-CAM materials were evaluated: Lava Ultimate (LU), Grandio Blocs (GB), VITA Enamic (VE),
and VITA Mark II (VM). Disk-shaped samples in shade A2-HT were prepared (n = 10) and polished to 1.00 ±
0.01 mm of thickness. Scattering (S), absorption (K), albedo (a) coefficient, transmittance (T%), light reflectivity
(RI), infinite optical thickness (X∞), and radiative transfer coefficients (μa, and μ′S) were calculated using
Kubelka-Munk method and Thennadil’s semi-empirical approach. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Goodness
of Fit (GFC) were used as performance optical behavior. Translucency differences were evaluated using the
relative translucency parameter (RTP00) and 50:50 % translucency perceptibility and acceptability thresholds
(TPT00 and TAT00).
Results: The spectral distribution of S, K, T%, RI, and X∞ was wavelength-dependent. GFC and RMSE values
indicated good spectral behavior matches and good comparative spectral values for RI in LU-GB, LU-VE, and GBVE,
and for K in VE-VM. VM displayed the highest scattering values across the wavelengths, while VE and VM
showed lower absorption at shorter wavelengths. LU and GB had the highest transmittance. The X∞ values
indicated that all 1.0 mm thick materials could be influenced by the background. No good spectral match and no
good comparative spectral values were found between CAD-CAM materials and anterior bovine maxillary
specimens. VM had the lowest RTP00 values with perceptible and unacceptable differences compared to CADCAM
materials evaluated.
Significance: Understanding the optical behavior of different CAD-CAM materials was essential for guiding clinicians
in material selection and optimizing their clinical performance. The findings confirm that the different
compositions and microstructure impact the optical properties and translucency of CAD-CAM restorative
materials.