Effect of thickness on the translucency of machinable and printable ceramic-glass polymer materials

• Published in: Journal of dentistry 2024-08, Vol.147, p.105129, Article 105129
• Main Authors: Aydin, Nazli, Uslu Kavrama, Fatma, Kocak, Elif Figen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Ceramic-glass polymer materials; Ceramics - chemistry; Color; Dental Materials - chemistry; Dental Porcelain - chemistry; Glass - chemistry; Humans; Light; Materials Testing; Polymers - chemistry; Printable permanent resin; Printable resin; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Relative translucency parameter; Spectrophotometry; Surface Properties; Three-dimensional printing; Translucency
• ISSN: 0300-5712; 1879-176X; 1879-176X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105129

To assess the translucency of machinable and printable ceramic-glass polymer materials with different thicknesses. Five ceramic-glass polymer materials were tested: one 3D-printable material, Permanent Crown resin (3D), two machinable materials available at low translucency (LT) and high translucency (HT) levels, VITA Enamic (VE) HT/LT, and Cerasmart 270 (CS) HT/LT. A total of 100 specimens were produced across 10 subgroups (n = 10) with thicknesses of 1 mm and 1.5 mm. The colour coordinates of the specimens were measured against black and white backgrounds using a spectrophotometer. Translucency was quantified using the Relative Translucency Parameter (RTP), calculated via the CIEDE2000 formula. A two-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05) was used for statistical analysis. The RTP for both thicknesses were ranked as follows: CSHT > VEHT > CSLT > 3D > VELT. The RTP of the 3D was lower than that of the HT machinable materials (CSHT and VEHT) for both thicknesses (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the RTP of 3D and CSLT at 1.5 mm (p = 1.000); however, at 1 mm, the RTP of the 3D was lower than that of the CSLT (p < 0.05). Notably, the 3D showed the least translucency difference with a 0.5 mm increase in thickness. Printable ceramic-glass polymer materials demonstrated lower translucency than HT machinable ceramic-glass polymer materials. Both the thickness and type significantly influenced the translucency of the LT machinable counterparts compared to the printable ceramic-glass polymer material. Printable ceramic-glass polymer resins may be a suitable option for minimally invasive procedures, especially when attempting to mask undesirable-coloured abutments. When selecting HT machinable ceramic-glass polymers, clinicians should pay greater attention to the abutment colour and thickness of the restorative material.