中华口腔医学杂志
中華口腔醫學雜誌
중화구강의학잡지
Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2015年
1期
43-46
,共4页
牙冠复盖体%美学,牙科%陶瓷制品
牙冠複蓋體%美學,牙科%陶瓷製品
아관복개체%미학,아과%도자제품
Dental veneers%Esthetics,dental%Ceramics
目的 比较4种临床常用全瓷贴面修复材料的色彩参数和透光率,以期为临床提供参考.方法 制作IPS Empress(R) CAD(高透光率A2色)、IPS e.max(R) Press(高透光率A2色)、IPS e.max(R)CAD(高透光率A2色)及VITABLOCS(R) MarkⅡ(A2色)4种瓷材料的片状试件,分别设为A、B、C、D组,每组10个试件,打磨抛光后控制试件厚度为(1.00±0.01) mm.使用分光测色计和透光率测试仪测量每组试件明度(L*值)、红绿色品(a*值)和黄蓝色品(b*值)及可见光积分透射比(T),计算彩度(C*ab值)以及各组试件与A2色标准比色片的色差(△E).结果 A和D组L*、a*、b*及C*ab值间差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05),但与B、C组L*、a*、b*及C*ab值间差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05);B、C组b*及C*ab值间差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05),但两组L*及a*值间差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).A、B、C、D组瓷材料与A2色标准比色片的色差(△E)分别为6.05±0.12、5.11±0.27、3.73±0.27和6.30±0.38;T依次为(29.69±0.31)％、(25.83±0.36)％、(28.92±0.47)％和(26.94±0.33)％.结论 4种瓷贴面材料的色彩参数存在一定差异,均有较高的透光率.瓷材料C与A2色标准比色片的色差最小.
目的 比較4種臨床常用全瓷貼麵脩複材料的色綵參數和透光率,以期為臨床提供參攷.方法 製作IPS Empress(R) CAD(高透光率A2色)、IPS e.max(R) Press(高透光率A2色)、IPS e.max(R)CAD(高透光率A2色)及VITABLOCS(R) MarkⅡ(A2色)4種瓷材料的片狀試件,分彆設為A、B、C、D組,每組10箇試件,打磨拋光後控製試件厚度為(1.00±0.01) mm.使用分光測色計和透光率測試儀測量每組試件明度(L*值)、紅綠色品(a*值)和黃藍色品(b*值)及可見光積分透射比(T),計算綵度(C*ab值)以及各組試件與A2色標準比色片的色差(△E).結果 A和D組L*、a*、b*及C*ab值間差異均無統計學意義(P＞0.05),但與B、C組L*、a*、b*及C*ab值間差異均有統計學意義(P＜0.05);B、C組b*及C*ab值間差異均無統計學意義(P＞0.05),但兩組L*及a*值間差異均有統計學意義(P＜0.05).A、B、C、D組瓷材料與A2色標準比色片的色差(△E)分彆為6.05±0.12、5.11±0.27、3.73±0.27和6.30±0.38;T依次為(29.69±0.31)％、(25.83±0.36)％、(28.92±0.47)％和(26.94±0.33)％.結論 4種瓷貼麵材料的色綵參數存在一定差異,均有較高的透光率.瓷材料C與A2色標準比色片的色差最小.
목적 비교4충림상상용전자첩면수복재료적색채삼수화투광솔,이기위림상제공삼고.방법 제작IPS Empress(R) CAD(고투광솔A2색)、IPS e.max(R) Press(고투광솔A2색)、IPS e.max(R)CAD(고투광솔A2색)급VITABLOCS(R) MarkⅡ(A2색)4충자재료적편상시건,분별설위A、B、C、D조,매조10개시건,타마포광후공제시건후도위(1.00±0.01) mm.사용분광측색계화투광솔측시의측량매조시건명도(L*치)、홍록색품(a*치)화황람색품(b*치)급가견광적분투사비(T),계산채도(C*ab치)이급각조시건여A2색표준비색편적색차(△E).결과 A화D조L*、a*、b*급C*ab치간차이균무통계학의의(P＞0.05),단여B、C조L*、a*、b*급C*ab치간차이균유통계학의의(P＜0.05);B、C조b*급C*ab치간차이균무통계학의의(P＞0.05),단량조L*급a*치간차이균유통계학의의(P＜0.05).A、B、C、D조자재료여A2색표준비색편적색차(△E)분별위6.05±0.12、5.11±0.27、3.73±0.27화6.30±0.38;T의차위(29.69±0.31)％、(25.83±0.36)％、(28.92±0.47)％화(26.94±0.33)％.결론 4충자첩면재료적색채삼수존재일정차이,균유교고적투광솔.자재료C여A2색표준비색편적색차최소.
Objective To analyze the color parameters and translucency of four frequently-used veneer materials.Methods Forty disc specimens[(1.00±0.01) mm in thickness,10 mm in diameter] were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions with IPS Empress(R) CAD[A2,high translucency(HT)],IPS e.max(R) Press(A2,HT),IPS e.max(R) CAD(A2,HT) and VITABLOCS(R) Mark Ⅱ(A2) respectively and were divided into Groups A,B,C,D.All of the specimens were ground and polished on a grinding machine.Then color parameters(L*,a*,b*) and transmittance(T) were measured using spectrocolorimeter and transmissivity testing device.The color parameters of the specimens were compared to the color parameters of A2 shade of Ivoclar Vivadent A-D shade guide.The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance(ANOVA),and mean values were compared by the Tukey's test(α =0.05).Results There was no statistical difference between the color parameters L*,a*,b* and C*ab of Group A and Group D(P＞0.05).But the color parameters of those two ceramic materials were statistically different from the color parameters of Group B and Group C(P＜ 0.05).There was no statistical difference between color parameters b* and C*ab of Group B and Group C(P＞ 0.05).However,the color parameters L* and a* of the two materials were statistically different(P＜0.05).The color differences(△E) between Group A,B,C,D and standard A2 were 6.05 ±0.12,5.11 ±0.27,3.73±0.27,6.30±0.38 respectively.The transmittances of Group A,B,C,D were (29.69± 0.31)％,(25.83±0.36) ％,(28.92±0.47)％ and (26.94±0.33)％ respectively.Conclusions The color parameters of these four materials are different.Their transmittance are relatively high but statistically different.The color difference(△E) between IPS e.max(R) CAD(A2,HT) and standard A2 is lowest among all the groups.
