Publication: Comparative Analysis of Fluorescent Characteristics of Different Provisional Restorative Materials for Improved Dental Esthetics
0
0
Issued Date
2024-11-01
Resource Type
eISSN
20734360
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85210147402
Journal Title
Polymers
Volume
16
Issue
22
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Polymers Vol.16 No.22 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Aneksomboonpol P., Klaisiri A., Katheng A., Limchaikul K., Intajak P., Kittikundecha N., Prawatvatchara W. Comparative Analysis of Fluorescent Characteristics of Different Provisional Restorative Materials for Improved Dental Esthetics. Polymers Vol.16 No.22 (2024). doi:10.3390/polym16223184 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/20458
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
At present, provisional restorative materials are widely used for both short- and long-term treatment purposes. In esthetic dentistry, for the simulation of natural teeth, fluorescence plays a crucial role in enhancing the elegant, vibrant, and life-like appearance of restorative teeth, making them more closely resemble natural teeth. To achieve ideal esthetic outcomes, restorative materials must replicate the characteristics of natural teeth to provide the most realistic appearance possible. Thus, this study aims to compare the color difference in fluorescence (∆E00) between a normal bovine tooth and eight provisional restorative materials under ultraviolet radiation. Eight provisional restorative materials were fabricated, for a total of 80 specimens (size 13.0 mm × 8.0 mm × 1.0 mm). A sound bovine tooth incisor was collected and used as a control for both enamel and dentine conditions. The color difference in fluorescence (∆E00) was assessed using a spectrophotometer. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) were used to analyze the resulting data. The results revealed that the color difference in fluorescence (∆E00) between the normal bovine tooth and eight provisional restorative materials used in this study was higher than the 50% acceptability threshold, indicating a clear mismatch between the fluorescence of the materials and that of the normal bovine tooth. Unifast Trad had the lowest ∆E00 among the provisional restorative materials, while Luxatemp Fluorescence had the highest color difference in fluorescence (∆E00). The color difference in fluorescence (∆E00) between Unifast Trad and Luxatemp Fluorescence is statistically significant. However, no significant difference was observed between Temporary CB, Vipi Block Trilux, and Protemp 4, or between Luxatemp Star and Luxatemp Fluorescence. It can thus be concluded that the ∆E00 mostly differs among the different materials. Luxatemp Star and Luxatemp Fluorescence exhibited the highest ∆E00 by a significant margin compared to the other groups.