RESUMEN
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinical information regarding the color stability of lithium disilicate veneers by using different methods of evaluation is scarce. PURPOSE: This clinical trial aimed to evaluate whether digital photographs are a reliable method of clinically assessing the color stability of lithium disilicate veneers. Standardized digital photographs (ELAB) were compared with the VITA Easyshade spectrophotometer (ES) at baseline and at a 6-month follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A split-mouth model was used in this randomized clinical trial to assess the performance of ceramic veneers (N=162), which were produced by either the CAD (IPS e.max CAD; n=81) or PRESS technique by heat pressing (IPS e.max PRESS; n=81), including the color dimension assessment. The ELAB evaluation was performed by making digital photographs with polarized light and a white balance (WhiBal) card. These data were transferred to the Adobe Lightroom CC2015 software program in RAW extension. The Digital Color Meter App (Apple) was used to measure L∗, a∗, and b∗ coordinates in this method. The ES color evaluation was performed with a spectrophotometer (Easy Shade) (control group) in the CIELab system. Measurements were performed 1 week after cementation (baseline) and at a 6-month follow-up. Data collected by the ELAB and ES methods were analyzed by a blinded calibrated operator to calculate ΔE by using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test (α=.05). RESULTS: For all periods, the comparison among ELAB and ES methods (P=.331), CAD×PRESS by ELAB (P=.658), and CAD×PRESS by ES (P=.833) showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized digital photographs (ELAB) were shown to be a straightforward and available resource for evaluating the color stability of lithium disilicate veneers, manufactured by CAD or PRESS.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to assess the effect of monolithic and bilayer restorations considering heat-pressed and milled/CAD/CAM reinforced lithium disilicate ceramic veneers, on the flexural strength after cementation. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Thirty-five specimens were divided into five groups (n = 7), according to the restorative solution: 2-mm thickness composite resin (CR2); heat-pressed monolithic ceramic 0.6 mm (HPM), CAD/CAM monolithic ceramics 0.6 mm (CCM); heat-pressed monolithic ceramic 0.4 mm + 0.2 mm glass-ceramic (HPB); CAD/CAM monolithic ceramic 0.4 mm + 0.2 glass-ceramic (CCB). Specimens were cemented on composite resin bars and submitted to a three-point bending test on a Universal Testing Machine, until fracture. Fractured samples were analyzed under stereomicroscope and SEM. Flexural strength data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test. RESULTS: The control group showed the highest flexural strength results (119.57 ± 19.49 MPa), with values similar to groups HPM (98 ± 25.62 MPa) and CCM (96.14 ± 20.60 MPa). Groups HPB and CCB showed lower values when compared with the other groups. Fracture started from the base on monolithic groups and from ceramic on bilayer groups. CONCLUSION: Both ceramic systems (CAD/CAM and heat-pressed) have similar fracture strength, although bilayer restorations present lower strength when compared with monolithic ceramics.
