Search

Purpose: To compare the translucency parameters and masking abilities of different monolithic CAD/CAM ceramics placed on different-colored substructures. Materials and Methods: Square-shaped specimens (12 × 12 × 1.5 mm) were prepared from feldspathic (C), leucite (EMP), lithium disilicate (e.max), zirconiareinforced lithium silicate (VS), resin nanoceramic (LU), polymer-infiltrated ceramic (VE), hybrid nanoceramic (GC), monolithic zirconia (TZI), and composite resin (TC) blocks (n = 10 per material). After mechanical polishing, the translucency parameter (TP) was calculated. Then, each ceramic specimen was measured on eight substructures, and the color difference between ND2 and each substrate was calculated with the CIEDE2000 formula. TP values were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell tests, and the color differences indicating masking ability were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. Results: The highest TP was observed in TC, followed by LU, EMP, C,GC, e.max, VS, VE, and TZI. The E00 color difference values of TZI, VS, and VE on all abutment colors, except for ND9, were below the acceptable threshold value. Conclusions: All monolithic ceramic materials used in the study masked the ND1 and ND3 substrates. The ND9, representing severely discolored or devitalized preparations, could not be masked by any monolithic CAD/CAM ceramics used in the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Current Research in Dental Sciences is the property of Ataturk University Coordinatorship of Scientific Journals and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)