journal of dentistry 41s (2013) e24–e30

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden

Optical properties of current ceramics systems for laminate

veneers

Bora Bagis a,*, Sedanur Turgut b

a
DDS Izmir Katip Celebi University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Izmir, Turkey
b
DDS Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Trabzon, Turkey

article info abstract

Article history: Objectives: Full-ceramic systems can be produced by different techniques (layering, heat-
Received 28 May 2012 pressing, CAD/CAM) and have various compositions with different crystalline contents that
Received in revised form may affect the optical properties of laminate restorations.
8 November 2012 Methods: A total of 60 specimens were prepared from e.max Press, e.max CAD, Empress
Accepted 12 November 2012 Esthetic, e.max Ceram, Inline, and ZirPress systems (A1 shade; diameter 10 mm; thickness
0.5  0.05 mm). The L*, a*, and b* values, chroma and translucency (TP) of each system were
recorded before and after ageing. The statistical analyses were performed by ANOVA,
Keywords: Tukey’s tests and the paired sample t-test ( p < 0.05).
Laminate veneer Results: The L* value of the shade guide was significantly different from those of the full-
Optical property ceramic systems; however, there were no significant differences between the a* values of
Shade guide Ceram, Esthetic, Inline and Zirpress. There were significant differences between the b*
Translucency values of the shade guide compared with the full-ceramics except for e.max Press. The L*
Chroma values decreased, and the a* and b* values increased after the ageing process for all groups.
Ageing There were no significant differences between the DE values of the ceramic systems
( p > 0.05). The TP values decreased, and the chroma value increased significantly after
the ageing process ( p > 0.05). The chroma of the shade guide was found to be the highest.
Conclusions: None of the full-ceramic systems was able to match the color of the shade
guide. The chemical structures of the ceramic systems were more effective for determining
the optical parameters than the fabrication techniques. Ageing caused full-ceramics to
become more opaque, darker, reddish and yellowish.
# 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

described. Dozic et al.3 reported that small changes in the

1. Introduction
Due to the complex optical characteristics of tooth color,
achieving successful aesthetics with a restoration is a difficult
process for dental clinicians. Successful aesthetic restorations
require knowledge of some basic principles and of the optical
characteristics of restorative materials.1,2 The problem of
matching the color of natural teeth has been investigated and
thickness and shade of the opaque and translucent porcelain
layers can influence the definitive shade of all ceramic
restorations. The challenge for laminate restorations is to
achieve ideal color and aesthetics with limited preparation of
the enamel.4 Several factors have been reported to influence
the definitive color of porcelain restorations, such as firing,5
glazing6 or the powder/liquid ratio.7 Surface texture could also
influence the optical properties of the ceramics, and it has

* Corresponding author at: I˙zmir Katip Celebi Universitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Aydınlık Evler Mahallesi, Cemil Meriç Caddesi, 6780
Sokak, No: 48, 35640-Çiğli, Izmir, Turkey. Tel.: +90 532 6804656.
E-mail address: bbagis@yahoo.com (B. Bagis).
0300-5712/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.013
 journal of dentistry 41s (2013) e24–e30
been reported that the surface waviness had high correlation
coefficients with optical parameters.8
Ceramics can be produced by different techniques, such as
the traditional layering technique (veneered by condensing
and sintering veneering porcelain), the fully anatomical
technique (veneered by heat-pressing fluorapatite glass–
ceramic ingots or CADCAM) or the cut-back technique
(veneered by partial heat-pressing and subsequent layering).9
Different heat temperatures, pressing pressure or the sinter-
ing techniques can also influence the porcelain texture. The
different interface textures between the porcelain layers can
change the direction of incident light and further change the
optical properties of the ceramic restoration. Whether differ-
ent techniques have the same influence on the appearance of
full-ceramic restorations has not been determined.
Translucency is identified as one of the primary factors in
controlling aesthetics and a critical consideration in the
selection of materials.10,11 The optical properties of teeth
and porcelains include color and translucency in addition to
hue, value and chroma.10 All ceramic systems have various
compositions with different crystalline contents, such as
lithium disilicate, fluorapatite or leucite, which may affect the
optical properties of these systems. An increase in the
crystalline content to achieve greater strength generally
results in greater opacity.12
To achieve a natural-looking restoration, two different
steps need to be performed: select the best possible shade
using a shade guide and/or an electronic shade-taking
instrument, and reproduce this shade with an appropriate
dental material.1 Shade selection is usually made by compar-
ing the natural dental tissues with a shade guide. Although
this color selection procedure has been the subject of several
investigations, it is still considered to be the best and is
therefore one of the weakest links in aesthetic restorative
dentistry.2,13–17 Fazi et al.18 showed that no consistent
recommendations are provided by the dental manufacture-
rs.Studies have compared the clinical performance of ceram-
ics; however, the color compatibility of ceramic systems when
constructing laminate veneers using different techniques and
chemical structures is unknown. Establishing the correct
match with the desired shade of the shade guide is still
difficult. The durability of the color of the restorations may
change after clinical use. In addition, only a few studies have
focused on the optical properties of ceramics after ageing
procedures, which is important for the long-term success of a
restoration.19–21
The aim of this study was to determine the ability of
ceramic systems to shade match with the shade guide and the
optical properties of these systems after the ageing procedure.
Table 1 – Ceramics used in the study.
Material Manufacturer
IPS e.max Press Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein
IPS Empress Esthetic
IPS ZirPress
IPS emax.Ceram
IPS Inline
IPS e.max CAD
e25
The null hypotheses were the following: (1) shade matching of
all ceramic systems would be compatible with the shade guide
and (2) optical differences would not be found between the
ceramic systems after the ageing procedure.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Specimen preparation
A total of 60 disc-shaped specimens of shade A1 were prepared
from the IPS e.max Press, IPS e.max CAD, IPS Empress Esthetic,
IPS e.max Ceram, IPS Inline, and IPS ZirPress ceramic systems
(Table 1). The IPS e.max Press, IPS Empress Esthetic, and IPS
ZirPress specimens were prepared by burning out a 0.5 mm
thickness of wax with a diameter of 10 mm. The specimens
were then heat-pressed (IPS Empress EP 600 press furnace)
according to the manufacturer’s directions. The IPS e.max
Ceram and IPS Inline specimens were made by mixing ceramic
powder with distilled water, which was then fired according to
the manufacturer’s directions. The IPS e.max CAD specimens
were prepared from IPS e.max CAD ingots using a slow-speed
diamond saw (ISOMET, Buehler Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL) under a
constant flow of water, which served as a lubricant and
coolant. All specimens were finished flat on a grinder/polisher
with wet #400 to #1200 grit silicon carbide paper, and the
thickness of the specimens was standardized (diameter,
10 mm; thickness, 0.5  0.05 mm). Digital callipers (Electronic
Digital Caliper, Shan, China) were used to measure the
thicknesses, and the specimens were ultrasonically cleaned
in distilled water for 10 min. The specimens were then coated
on one side with a layer of neutral-shade glaze and fired at
765 8C. The specimens were then ultrasonically cleaned in
distilled water for 10 min before the color measurements.
2.2. Measurement of the optic parameters of the ceramics
The color measurements were performed with a tristimulus
colorimeter (ShadeEye NCC, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) in a viewing
booth under D65 standard illumination on a white background
and were based on the ISO standards (ISO 7491). Before the
experimental measurements, the colorimeter was calibrated
according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and the color-
imeter was positioned in the middle of each sample. The L*a*b*
color notation of each specimen was measured consecutively
three times, and the average of the three readings was
calculated to give the initial color of the specimen. The color
values of all the ceramics were measured according to the
Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE) L*a*b* system.L
Material type Technique
Lithium disilicate Pressing
Leucite Pressing
Fluorapatite Pressing
Nano-fluorapatite Layering
Leucite Layering
Lithium disilicate Machining
e26 journal of dentistry 41s (2013) e24–e30
(lightness or brightness or value) corresponds to the L* of the
CIE Lab* system and represents the lightness/darkness of a
color; a* is a measure of redness (positive) or greenness
(negative); and b* is a measure of yellowness (positive) or
blueness (negative). The (CIE) measurements enable the
evaluation of the degree of perceptible color change based
on the three coordinates L*, a*, and b*.22–24
2.3. Measurement of color properties of the shade guide
Color measurements were made from A1 shade tab of the
shade guide (Chromascop, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liech-
tenstein) using the same colorimeter under the same condi-
tions as described before. The measurements were obtained
from the tab by contacting the measurement tip on the middle
third region of the shade tab. The L*a*b* color notation of the
tab was measured consecutively three times, and the average
of the three readings was calculated to give the initial color.
2.4. Evaluation of chroma values
Chroma, which enables the differentiation of pale and strong
colors, is defined as the radial component of the cylindrical
coordinates CIE L*a*b* and calculated according to the formula
Lab = [(a*)2 + (b*)2]1/2.25
2.5. Evaluation of translucency parameters
The color of the glazed surfaces of the specimen was
measured over white (CIE L* = 96.97, a* = 0.14 and b* = 0.2)
and black (CIE L* = 1.43, a* = 0.13 and b* = 0.62) backgrounds.
Translucency is the property of a substance that permits the
passage of light but disperses the light so that an object cannot
be observed clearly through the material, i.e., a state between
complete opacity and transparency. Based on the CIE L*a*b*
system, the translucency of a material is usually determined
with the translucency parameter (TP). TP refers to the color
difference between a uniform thickness of a material over
black and white backgrounds, which corresponds directly to
the visual assessments of translucency. If the material is
absolutely opaque, the TP value is zero. The greater the TP
value, the higher the actual translucency of a material.26,27 The
TP was obtained by calculating the color difference between
the specimen over the white background and that over the
black background:
1=2
TP ¼ ½ðLw  LbÞ2 þ ðaw  abÞ2 þ ðbw  bbÞ2 
where ‘b’ refers to the color coordinates over the black back-
ground and ‘w’ refers to those over the white.28,29
2.6. Ageing test
The specimens were subjected to artificial ageing using an
Atlas UV 2000 test machine (Material Testing Technology LLC,
Chicago). Aluminium plates were prepared in accordance with
the sample size, and the specimens were inserted into the
mould of the plates and subjected to accelerated ageing tests.
All specimens were exposed to ultraviolet light and water
spray for 300 h in the test machine. The glazed surface of each
specimen was continuously exposed to the light source. The
back panel temperature varied between 38 8C (dark) and 70 8C
(light), and the relative humidity was 95% (dark) and 50%
(light). The dry bulb temperature was 38 8C in the dark and
47 8C in the light. The testing cycle consisted of 40 min of light
only, 20 min of light with front water spray, 60 min of light
only, and 60 min in the dark with back water spray. The total
exposure energy was 150 kJ/m2.
2.7. Measurement of optic parameters after ageing of the
ceramics
After ageing, the specimen color was again measured under
the same conditions as before. The L*, a* and b* values were
recorded. The color differences (DE values) were calculated
from the L*, a*, and b* values before and after ageing:
DE = [(DL*)2 + (Da*)2 + (Db*)2]1/2.
2.8. Data analysis
The normality of the data was analyzed with the Shapiro–Wilk
test. Because whole data indicated normal distribution,
parametric tests were used. The L*, a*, b* and chroma values
of the shade guide and the 12 ceramics groups were analyzed
using analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) and Tukey’s
tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. To compare the L*, a*, b*
and TP values of the ceramics before and after ageing, two-
way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests were used. The mean values
of L*, a*, b*, chroma and TP before and after ageing were
compared using the paired sample t-test. Tukey’s test was
used to compare the DE values among the ceramics after
ageing. The Pearson correlation coefficient test was also used
for the comparison of the TP and chroma values after ageing.
For all analyses, p values <0.05 were considered to indicate
statistical significance.
2.9. Results
The shade guide’s color values for the A1 shade tab were
measured as L* = 73.8, a* = 0.9, and b* = 10.7. The L* value of
the shade guide was significantly different for all ceramic
systems used; however, there was no significant difference
between the a* values of IPS Ceram, IPS Esthetic, IPS Inline and
IPS Zirpress. There were significant differences between the b*
values of the shade guide and all ceramic groups, except IPS
e.max Press ( p > 0.05).
Tables 2–4 show the means and standard deviations of the
L*, a*, and b* values of the ceramics before and after ageing.
Two-way ANOVA revealed significant interactions of the a*
values between the ceramic groups and the ageing test
( p < 0.001). There were no significant interactions of the L*
( p = 0.662) and b* values (0.999) between the ceramic groups
and the ageing test. The IPS e.max Press system showed the
highest L* and b* values (L* = 90.9 and b* = 9.8) before ageing,
whereas the IPS Esthetic showed the smallest values
(L* = 86.24 and b* = 5.48). The IPS Esthetic showed the highest
a* value (0.08), and the IPS e.max CAD showed the lowest a*
value (1.74) before ageing. The L* values decreased, and the a*
and b* values increased after the ageing process for all groups.
The color differences after the ageing process are shown in
Table 2. The DE values vary from 1.39 to 1.83, and there were no
 journal of dentistry 41s (2013) e24–e30 e27

Table 2 – Means and standard deviations of the L*, a*, and compatible with the shade guide, was rejected. The second
b* values of all-ceramics and the scale before ageing. null hypothesis, which stated that no optical differences
L* a* b* would be found after the ageing procedure among the ceramic
systems, was accepted. Optical properties of the ceramics
Ceram 89.04  0.41(x) 0.72  0.12(x) 6.87  0.5(x)
Esthetic 86.24  0.72(y) 0.08  0.13(x) 5.48  0.67(y) were changed after the ageing procedure.
E.max Press 90.9  0.78(x) 1.67  0.17(y) 9.8  1.48(wx) The results indicated that none of the full-ceramic systems
Inline 89.52  0.87(x) 1.07  0.21(x) 8.17  0.57(z) were able to match the color of the shade guide. The L* value of
ZirPress 89.81  0.53(x) 1.0  0.12(x) 8.3  0.32(z) the shade guide was found to be the lowest compared with the
E.max CAD 85.32  0.71(x) 1.74  0.09(y) 9.48  1.27(wz) ceramics, meaning that newly produced ceramic veneers are
SCALE 73.8(z) 0.9(x) 10.7(tw)
brighter than the shade guide. This result may be explained by
Groups with same letters do not have significant differences in the thickness of the shade guide, as it has dentine and enamel
columns ( p > 0.05).
masses, which are much thicker than the full-ceramic
specimens used in this study. Clinicians select the color of
significant differences between the DE values of the ceramic the laminate veneers without removing the dentine layer of
systems ( p > 0.05). the shade guide. Producing shade guides with only an enamel
Table 4 show the means and standard deviations of the layer of different thicknesses might be more useful for
chroma and TP values before and after ageing. There were laminate veneer color selection. In a previous study,30 two
significant differences among these values after the ageing different shade guides were compared with metal base
process. The TP values decreased and the chroma values ceramics, and a closer color correspondence was observed
increased significantly after ageing ( p > 0.05). The IPS Esthetic for the Vitapan 3D Master than the Vitapan Classical. The color
was the most translucent (20.89), and the IPS e.max CAD was values of the shade guide were different from the specimens in
the least translucent (15.82) ceramic system. The chroma that study, and the thickness of the specimens was 1.6 mm. In
value of the shade guide was found to be the highest compared the current study, the Chromascop shade guide, which is
with the other ceramic specimens ( p < 0.05). No significant recommended for full-ceramic restorations, was used for color
correlation was found between the TP and chroma values after correspondence, and the thickness of the ceramic specimens
ageing. (IPS Ceram: r = 0.697, p = 0.082; IPS Esthetic: r = 0.683, used in the present study was thinner (0.5 mm) to simulate the
p = 0.091; IPS Inline: r = 0.436, p = 0.328; IPS e.max Press: clinical conditions for laminate veneers. Laminate restora-
r = 0.105, p = 0.823; IPS Zirpress: r = 0.604, p = 0.151; IPS e.max tions have generally been reported to be 0.3–0.9 mm in
CAD: r = 0.112; p = 0.812). thickness, and the overall color can be changed by the
thickness. The color values (L*, a* and b*) of the shade guide
were also found to be significantly different from the
3. Discussion constructed laminates for all the ceramic systems used in
the present study.
Based on these results, the first null hypothesis, which stated In addition to the different chemical structures, ceramic
that shade matching of all ceramic systems would be veneers can also be fabricated with different techniques:

Table 3 – Means and standard deviations of the L*, a*, and b* and DE values of all-ceramics after ageing.
L* a* b* DE
Ceram (a) 88.21  0.64(#) 0.61  0.12(#) 7.88  0.77(#) 1.49(x)
Esthetic (a) 84.84  0.45(#) 0.57  0.11(#) 6.41  0.74(#) 1.71(x)
E.max Press (a) 89.92  0.88(#) 1.2  0.15(#) 10.78  1.33(#) 1.51(x)
Inline (a) 88.15  1.03(#) 0.75  0.11(#) 9.28  0.69(#) 1.85(x)
ZirPress (a) 88.56  0.55(#) 0.61  0.14(#) 9.42  0.46(#) 1.83(x)
E.max CAD (a) 89.84  0.84(#) 1.28  0.16(#) 10.42  1.07(#) 1.59(x)
Groups with same letters do not have significant differences in columns ( p > 0.05). Symbols show the significant difference between the values
before and after ageing ( p < 0.05).

Table 4 – Chroma and TP mean and standard deviation values before and after ageing.
Chroma Chromaa Translucency Translucencya
(x) (#) (x)
Ceram 6.92  0.53 7.9  0.56 15.91  0.71 16.63  0.76(#)
Esthetic 5.48  1.21(y) 6.38  0.92(#) 19.87  0.49(w) 20.89  0.67(#)
E.max Press 9.95  0.89(wz) 10.88  0.77(#) 16.19  0.95(xy) 16.96  0.81(#)
Inline 8.24  0.48(z) 9.15  0.64(#) 19.09  1.16(wz) 20.06  1.04(#)
ZirPress 8.36  0.65(z) 9.42  0.56(#) 17.97  1.01(yz) 18.06  1.32(#)
E.max CAD 10.04  1.02(wz) 11.33  0.82(#) 14.49  0.83(x) 14.82  0.79(#)
Groups with same letters do not have significant differences in columns ( p > 0.05). Symbols show the significant difference between the values
before and after ageing ( p < 0.05).
a
After ageing.
e28 journal of dentistry 41s (2013) e24–e30
pressing, layering or CAD/CAM. The IPS e.max Press (lithium
disilicate based), the IPS e.max ZirPress (fluorapatite based),
and the IPS Esthetic (leucite based) ceramics were chosen for
the pressing technique; the IPS e.max CAD (lithium disilicate
based) ceramics were chosen for the CAD/CAM technique in
this study. The IPS Inline (leucite) and IPS e.max Ceram (nano-
fluorapatite) can be made by the layering technique. Although
the IPS e.max Press, Esthetic, e.max CAD, ZirPress, Inline or
Ceram all-ceramic systems have different structures and/or
construction techniques, their manufacturers recommend the
same shade guide (Chromascop) for shade selection. Clin-
icians usually consider the color matching by using the same
shade guide despite the differences in the chemical structures
by composition or manufacturing methods. Although color
measurement devices, such as colorimeters and spectro-
photometers, have become popular because of their accuracy,
standardization, and numerical expression of colors. In
dentistry, color matching has traditionally been performed
with shade guides, which is a cheaper and more practical
process.17,31,32 Producing shade tabs for each material of
several thicknesses according to the manufacturers’ instruc-
tions might be more useful because it would more accurately
simulate the final shade of the restoration.
In the present study, the ceramics used for layering (IPS
e.max Ceram, IPS Inline) had different optical properties
compared with the pressed or CAD/CAM ceramics. Each
technique is said to be able to improve the aesthetic properties
of all-ceramic cores,11 but whether different veneering
techniques have the same influence on the appearance of
these restorations has not been determined. There were also
significant differences between the a* and b* values of the IPS
e.max Ceram and IPS Inline layering ceramics, with IPS Inline
being more reddish and yellowish.
In the present study, although the lithium disilicate-based
IPS e.max Press and IPS e.max CAD have different construc-
tion techniques, there were no significant differences between
the L*, a*, b*, and chroma values or the translucency of the
specimens. Firing, pressing or machining procedures do not
appear to affect the color of these ceramic materials, and
different crystalline composition of the material may deter-
mine the optical properties rather than the construction
techniques.
In addition, the physical characteristics of the porcelain
that lead to light absorption may also affect the optic
parameters of a ceramic, such as translucency. Both the
physical structure of the particles (leading to absorption) and
the relative refractive index of the particles in the matrix affect
the amount of scattering.33,34 A material composed of small
particles (approximately 0.1 mm in diameter) is less opaque,
whereas large particles (approximately 10 mm in diameter)
cause surface reflection as the light strikes, refraction as light
passes through, and absorption.34,35 According to our findings,
the IPS Esthetic showed the greatest TP value, and the IPS
e.max CAD showed the lowest. Ceramics that contain less
crystalline phase are generally considered to be more
translucent. However, Zhang et al.35 reported that the
translucency of ceramics containing a crystalline phase (IPS
Eris) was 55% lower than that of porcelain that did not contain
a crystalline phase (Duceram LFC). The crystalline phases in
the IPS Eris porcelain may have had less effect on the
translucency than did the pores. In dental laboratories,
technicians attempt to make ceramic restorations using a
powder/liquid ratio according to the manufacturers’ direc-
tions. However, it has been reported that the suggested
powder/liquid ratio may not always result in the maximum
apparent density and minimum total porosity for all porce-
lains.36 In the present study, the higher TP value of Ceram,
Inline or Zirpress compared with the lithium-based crystalline
ceramics may be explained by the distribution of the pore size
inside the ceramic structure. In addition, their chemical
structures and particle size may be the reason for the different
TP values of the ceramic systems for the same shade.
In a previous study,37 the contrast ratio of Empress II
veneers (0.46) was significantly lower than that of Procera
veneers (0.50). The lower masking efficiency of the Empress II
core may be explained by its relatively low (60%) volume of
lithium disilicate crystals and its small quantity of lithium
orthophosphate secondary crystalline phase compared with
the Procera core, which contains a 99% volume of alumina
crystals. In addition to the differences in the crystal volumes,
the refractive index of lithium disilicate could be lower than
that of alumina. The findings of the current study indicated
that the TP value of the leucite-based IPS Esthetic is the highest
relative to other full ceramics. Although this property may
promote the optical parameters of the restoration in many
cases, it may cause an unexpected aesthetic appearance of the
restoration, especially when there is severe background
discoloration.
Many color studies have used accelerated ageing proce-
dures, combining UV light exposure with cycles of humidity
and light to better simulate the oral environment.20,21,23 The
color stability of some dental materials was studied after
accelerated ageing up to 450 kJ/m2, and the largest color
change occurred during the first cycle of 150 kJ/m2.21,22 In a
previous study, the color stability of the resin-cemented
e.max Press laminates was studied, and the specimens were
aged for 150 kJ/m2.20 The manufacturer of the ageing machine
used in the present study claimed that 300 h of accelerated
weathering is equivalent to 150 kJ/m2 energy and 1 year of
clinical service.20–22 In the present study, the specimens were
aged for 300 h to evaluate the color change during this initial
period.
Clinical color matching may be rated according to the DE
values and under uncontrolled clinical conditions. When the
DE value of two colors is 0, the color difference is described as
‘‘perfect’’; a value of 0.5–1.5 units is ‘‘very good’’; 1–2 is ‘‘good’’;
2–3.5 is ‘‘clinically perceptible’’; and >3.5 is ‘‘unacceptable.’’
Average color differences higher than 1.0 DE are considered as
visually detectable and 3.5 DE are rated as imperceptible in the
oral environment.20,24,37,38
In the present study, the L* and a* values decreased,
whereas the b* values increased for all ceramic groups after
ageing, producing darker and more reddish and yellowish
specimens with time. Comparing each system, the results
showed that there were no statistically significant differences
between the color changes of the ceramics after ageing. DE
values were less than 3.5 for all groups; thus, it could be said
that the color changes after ageing were clinically impercep-
tible but may be visually detectable as the color changes were
higher than 1 DE unit. A recent study reported that all IPS
 journal of dentistry 41s (2013) e24–e30
e.max Press systems get darker and more red and yellow after
ageing, but this change was clinically imperceptible.20 The
porcelain systems used in the present study showed similar
color changes regardless of their types.
The ageing process also affected the chroma and TP values
of all ceramics, with the TP values decreasing and the chroma
values increasing for all groups. Decreased TP values might be
attributed to the discoloration of the all-ceramic specimens
after ageing. These changes were significantly different. UV
ageing caused the all-ceramics to become more yellow and red
as the a* and b* values increased. As the chroma of the
materials depend on the a* and b* values, it may be suggested
that the specimens would have higher chroma after the ageing
process. The level of clinical acceptability in the variations of
chroma or translucency has not been reported in the
literature, but the ageing process caused the ceramics to
become more opaque and saturated. Clinical trials are
required to assess the optical properties of laminate ceramics
for long-term usage.
4. Conclusions
1. None of the full-ceramic systems were able to match the
color of the shade guide.
2. The chemical structures of the ceramic systems were more
effective in determining the optical parameters than the
fabrication techniques.
3. Ageing caused full-ceramics to become darker and more
opaque, reddish and yellowish.
Conflict of interest statement
Non declared.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank to Dr. Yildirim Hakan Bagis and Dr. Tamer
Tuzuner for their supports while preparing this study
references
1. Vichi A, Louca C, Corciolani G, Ferrari M. Color related to
ceramic and zirconia restorations: a review. Dental Materials
2011;27:97–108.
2. Wee AG, Monaghan P, Johnston WM. Variation in color
between intended matched shade and fabricated shade of
dental porcelain. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2002;87:657–66.
3. Dozic A, Kleverlaan CJ, Meegdes M, van der Zel J, Feilzer AJ.
The influence of porcelain layer thickness on the final shade
of ceramic restorations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2003;90:563–70.
4. Feire A, Archegas LR. Porcelain laminate veneer on a highly
discolored tooth: a case report. Journal of Canadian Dental
Association 2010;76:126–7.
5. Ozturk O, Uludag B, Usumez A, Sahin V, Celik G. The effect
of ceramic thickness and number of firings on the color of
two all-ceramic systems. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2008;100:99–106.
e29
6. Yilmaz C, Korkmaz T, Demirköprülü H, Ergün G, Ozkan Y.
Color stability of glazed and polished dental porcelains.
Journal of Prosthodontics 2008;17:20–4.
7. Zhang Y, Griggs JA, Benham AW. Influence of powder/liquid
mixing ratio on porosity and translucency of dental
porcelains. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2004;91:
128–35.
8. Wang H, Xiong F, Zhenhua L. Influence of varied surface
texture of dentin porcelain on optical properties of porcelain
specimens. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2011;105:242–8.
9. Carossa S, Lombardo S, Pera P, Corsalini M, Rastello ML,
Preti G. Influence of posts and cores on light transmission
through different all-ceramic crowns: spectrophotometric
and clinical evaluation. International Journal of Prosthodontics
2001;14:9–14.
10. Kelly JR, Nishimura I, Campbell SD. Ceramics in dentistry:
historical roots and current perspectives. Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry 1996;75:18–32.
11. Sorensen JA, Cruz M, Mito WT, Raffeiner O, Meredith HR,
Foser HP. A clinical investigation on three-unit fixed partial
dentures fabricated with a lithium disilicate glass–ceramic.
Practical Procedures and Aesthetetic Dentistry 1999;11:95–106.
12. Luo XP, Zhang L. Effect of veneering techniques on color
and translucency of Y-TZP. Journal of Prosthodontics
2010;19:465–70.
13. Corciolani G, Vichi A, Louca C, Ferrari M. Color match of two
different ceramic systems to selected shades of one shade
guide. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2011;105:171–6.
14. Kim-Pusateri S, Brewer JD, Davis EL, Wee AG. Reliability and
accuracy of four dental shade-matching devices. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry 2009;101:193–9.
15. Chu SJ, Trushkowsky RD, Paravina RD. Dental color
matching instruments and systems. Review of clinical and
research aspects. Journal of Dentistry 2010;38:16.
16. Hammad IA. Intrarater repeatability of shade selections
with two shade guides. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2003;89:50–3.
17. Baltzer A, Kaufmann-Jinoian V. Shading of ceramic crowns
using digital tooth shade matching devices. International
Journal of Computerized Dentistry 2005;8:129–52.
18. Fazi G, Vichi A, Corciolani G, Ferrari M. Spectrophotometric
evaluation of color match to VITA classical shade guide of
four different veneering porcelain systems for metal
ceramic restorations. American Journal of Dentistry
2009;22:19–22.
19. Heffernan MJ, Aquilino SA, Diaz-Arnold AM, Haselton DR,
Stanford CM, Vargas MA. Relative translucency of six all-
ceramic systems. Part II. Core and veneer materials. Journal
of Prosthetic Dentistry 2002;88:10–5.
20. Turgut S, Bagis B. Color stability of laminate veneers: an
in vitro study. Journal of Dentistry 2011;39s:57–64.
21. Lu H, Powers JM. Color stability of resin cements after
accelerated aging. American Journal of Dentistry 2004;17:
354–8.
22. Heydecke G, Zhang F, Razzoog ME. In vitro color stability of
double-layer veneers after accelerated aging. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry 2001;85:551–7.
23. Kilinc E, Antonson SA, Hardigan PC, Kesercioglu A. Resin
cement color stability and its influence on the final shade of
all-ceramics. Journal of Dentistry 2011;39:30–6.
24. Yilmaz B, Karaagaclioglu L. In vitro evaluation of color
replication of metal ceramic specimens using visual and
instrumental color determinations. Journal of Dentistry
2011;105:21–7.
25. Wyszecki G, Stiles WS. Color science: concepts and
methods, quantitative data and formula. 2nd ed. New York:
John Wiley and Sons; 1982. p. 166–9.
26. Villarroel M, Fahl N, Sousa AM, Oliveira OB. Direct esthetic
restorations based on translucency and opacity of
e30 journal of dentistry 41s (2013) e24–e30
composite resins. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
2011;23:73–88.
27. Braga RR, Cesar PF, Gonzaga CC. Mechanical properties of
resin cements with different activation modes. Journal of
Oral Rehabilitation 2002;29:257–62.
28. Ryan E, Tam LE, McComb D. Comparative translucency of
esthetic composite resin restorative materials. Journal of
Canadian Dental Association 2010;76:a84.
29. Yu B, Lee YK. Influence of color parameters of resin
composites on their translucency. Dental Materials
2008;24:36–42.
30. Corciolani G, Vichi A, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Colour
correspondence of a ceramic system in two different shade
guides. Journal of Dentistry 2009;37:98–101.
31. Tung FF, Goldstein GR, Jang S, Hittelman E. The repeatability
of an intraoral dental colorimeter. Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry 2002;88:585–90.
32. Paul S, Peter A, Pietrobon N, Hammerle CHF. Visual and
spectrophotometric shade analysis of human teeth. Journal
of Dental Research 2002;81:578–82.
33. Kingery WD, Bowen HK, Uhlmann DR. Introduction to
ceramics, 2nd ed., vol. 36. John Wiley: New York; 1976.
p. 646–76.
34. Kim JH, Lee YK, Powers JM. Influence of a series of organic
and chemical substances on the translucency of resin
composites. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B
Applied Biomaterials 2006;77:21–7.
35. Zhang Y, Griggs A, Benham AW. Influence of powder/liquid
mixing ratio on porosity and translucency of dental
porcelains. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2004;91:
128–35.
36. Chu FC, Chow TW, Chai J, Law D. Contrast ratios and
masking ability of three types of ceramic veneers. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry 2007;98:359–64.
37. O’Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 3rd ed.
Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.; 2002.
38. Ozcelik B, Yılmaz B, Ozcan I, Kırcelli C. Colorimetric analysis
of opaque porcelain fired to different base metal alloy used
in metal ceramic restorations. Journal of Dentistry
2008;99:193–202.