The effects of thickness and shade on translucency parameters of contemporary, esthetic dental ceramics.

Abstract

To analyze translucency variations among four different contemporary esthetic ceramic systems having different shades and thicknesses. Ceramic specimens having different shades and translucencies were tested: leucite reinforced glass-ceramic (ECAD), conventional feldspathic ceramic (Noritake), zirconia reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic (Suprinity) and hybrid ceramic (Enamic). Specimens of 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0-mm thickness (n=3/group, 615 total) were prepared. Translucency (TP) and Relative Translucency (RTP) Parameters were calculated from spectroradiometric color readings. Effects of shade and thickness for a given system were statistically analyzed using MANOVA and Tukey post-hoc multiple comparisons tests. Translucency variations were assessed comparatively with literature-based perceptibility and acceptability thresholds. TP/RTP values of all ceramic materials decreased with increasing thickness. The most translucent specimens were 0.6-mm thick ECAD HT-A3.5 (TP=31.99) and ECAD HT-C2 (RTP=23.75), while the least translucent was 2-mm thick Enamic T-3M2 (TP=7.27; RTP=4.79). Thickness and material type significantly influenced translucency (p < 0.001). Noritake and ECAD LT showed similar translucency values, as well as Suprinity HT and ECAD LT. For ceramic restorations thicker than 0.9-mm, any thickness increase of 0.3-0.5 mm produces a perceptible but clinically acceptable translucency variation. Increases in thickness larger than 0.6-mm will result in an unacceptable translucency shift. Dental practitioners need to recognize key factors that influence translucency of ceramic restorations in order to choose the optimal material, shade, translucency, and thickness suitable for different clinical scenarios. While shade plays a minor role in translucency variation, ceramic type and restoration thickness significantly affect overall translucency.