Color match using instrumental and visual methods for single, group, and multi‐shade composite resins

• Published in: Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry Vol. 33; no. 2; pp. 394 - 400
• Main Authors: Iyer, Rubinya Sundar, Babani, Vinti Rajendra, Yaman, Peter, Dennison, Joseph
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.03.2021; Blackwell Publishing Ltd
• Subjects: blending; Color; Composite materials; composite resin; Composite Resins; Dentistry; esthetics; Materials Testing; Resins; Shade; shade match; composite resin; blending; color; shade match; esthetics
• ISSN: 1496-4155; 1708-8240
• DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12621

Objective To evaluate the shade match of three composite resin restorative materials to bi‐layered acrylic teeth instrumentally and visually. Materials and methods Three composite materials—Omnichroma [OM], Tetric EvoCeram [TE], and TPH Spectra ST [TS] were placed into occlusal preparations (5 mm diameter, 2 mm depth) on 15 bi‐layered acrylic teeth per each shade A2, B1, B2, C2, and D3. The composites were placed in a single increment and cured using Bluephase G2 light. The L*, a*, and b* readings were obtained using VITA Easyshade V for the teeth and restorations; mean ΔE00 values were calculated and assessed using two‐way analysis of variance with a test of simple effects with multiple comparisons for significance (P < .05). Three teeth were restored to anatomical form with each of the composites for the five shades and were subjectively graded by 30 evaluators as 1—best match, 2—intermediate, and 3—poorest match. Results In the instrumental evaluation, OM and TS showed lower ∆E00 values for lighter shades, whereas TE showed lower and similar ∆E00 values for all shades. In the visual evaluation, TE exhibited the best shade match for darker shades C2 and D3. OM and TS matched better with lighter shades. Conclusion Shade matching is composite and shade‐dependent. Overall, TE matched the multiple shades better than the other two materials. Clinical significance Single and group shade composites displayed shade matching ability inferior to a multi‐shade composite material, which may limit their use in highly esthetic clinical situations.