Resin composite thickness’ influence on L*a*b* coordinates and translucency

Objectives

To evaluate if material thickness can influence the L*a*b* coordinates and translucency of different composite shades.

Materials and methods

Twelve composite disc specimens made of three different resin composite materials (dentin A2, Essentia, GC; body shade A2, Brillant Everglow, Coltene-Whaledent; enamel skin neutral, Inspiro, Edelweiss DR) and of three different thicknesses 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm were readied. L*a*b* coordinates of the 118 specimens were assessed by a calibrated reflectance spectrophotometer over a black as well as a white background.

Results

Over the black background, median ΔE00 values varied from 0.7 (Brilliant Everglow) to 1.5 (Inspiro SN) for 0.5-mm composite thickness (intrinsic color variation) and from 3.2 (Essentia) to 7.5 (Inspiro SN) for 1.0 mm, respectively 6.1 (Essentia) to 11.1 (Inspiro SN) for 1.5-mm composite thickness (color variation related to thickness). Over the white background, median ΔE00 values varied from 0.6 (Essentia) to 1.6 (Inspiro SN) for 0.5-mm composite thickness and from 2.9 (Inspiro SN) to 4.3 (Essentia) for 1.0 mm, respectively 4.9 (Inspiro SN) to 7.0 (Essentia) for 1.5-mm composite thickness.

Transparency varied from 25.2% (Essentia) to 34.6% (Inspiro SN) for 0.5-mm composite thickness, from 20.3% (Essentia) to 27.5% (Inspiro SN) for 1.0-mm thickness and from 14.8% (Essentia) to 22.9% (Inspiro SN) for 1.5-mm thickness.

Conclusions

Material thickness can influence the L*a*b* coordinates and translucency of different composite shades.

Clinical relevance

L* a* b* coordinates are influenced by composite thickness.

     

Genetic and Genomic Testing in Clinical Practice: What You Need to Know

The clinical applications of genetic testing are growing rapidly and they now account for a significant percentage of total laboratory testing procedures. Many clinicians are uncomfortable with the types and applications of genetic tests and the dependable resources that are available for self‐education. Furthermore, Direct to Consumer genetic testing has presented several challenges to healthcare providers as consumers now have an access to tests that they may not fully understand and results they may act upon inappropriately. This article presents some of the issues and resources to help nurses navigate this changing landscape.