Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
IADR 2024 Continental European and Scandinavian Divisions Meeting, Geneve, İsviçre, 12 - 14 Eylül 2024, ss.1, (Özet Bildiri)
Objectives: To evaluate artificial accelerated aging (AAA)-dependent color stability of different restorative materials.
Methods: Disc shaped samples (D=10mm, 2-mm thick, n=5) were fabricated using 9 different restorative materials: Tetric N-ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent), Beautifil II (Shofu), Admira Fusion (Voco), Admira Fusion Xtra (Voco), Estelite Σ Quick (Tokuyama), Charisma Topaz (Kulzer) Charisma Diamond One (Kulzer), GrandioSO (VOCO), GrandioSO x-tra (VOCO) were polymerized using a curing light was through a Mylar strip and 1mm glass slide for 40 seconds. Specimens were polished using PoGO disk-shaped polishers (PoGo, Dentsply) for 40 seconds. A spectrophotometer (X-Rite Ci7600 Series, Xrite,) was used for color measurements at baseline, and after AAA (SUNTEST XXL, Atlas Material Testing Technology): exposure to controlled irradiance of 150 kJ/m2. CIEDE2000 color differences (ΔE00) were calculated. Means and standard deviations were determined, and data was analyzed by One-way ANOVA. Tukey's tests were used for post hoc comparisons. In addition, a 50:50% acceptability threshold (AT) of ΔE00=1.8 was used in result interpretation.
Results: CIEDE2000 color differences of different restorative materials before and after accelerated aging are listed in the Table. Charisma Topaz exhibited the best color stability after artificial aging. Statistically significant differences were recorded among materials (p<0.001).
Conclusions: Artificial aging-dependent color differences were material-dependent.