RESUMEN
The objective of present study was to compare the color stability of esthetic materials after application of fluoride varnishes. Esthetic restorative materials including composite resin (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE, MN, USA), resin modified glass-ionomer (RMGI, Fuji II LC, GC Co., Tokyo, Japan), and giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00, Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan) were used in this study. Cavity shield (3M ESPE, MN, USA) and V-varnish premium (Vericom, Seoul, Korea) were used as the fluoride varnishes. 30 samples of each restorative materials were prepared, which were divided into 10 each, among three groups. Group I were stored in distilled water, which were used as the control, Group II were applied with Cavity shield and Group III were applied with V-varnish premium. All specimens were stored in the distilled water at 60 ℃ for 30 days for the accelerated test. Samples were then subjected to colorimetric analysis. Data collected was statistically analyzed using one way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (p=0.05). The color change before and after application of varnish was observed in all experimental groups. Especially RMGI showed highest ΔE* value (p<0.05). The color change according to the accelerated test showed no significant difference in the varnish application group and the control group. Giomer and RMGI applied with Cavity shield showed more color change than V-varnish applied group, despite no significant differences. Present study concludes that color stability of esthetic restoration materials can be affected by application of fluoride varnish. Especially, RMGI showed a large color change compared to the composite resin and giomer, which suggested that careful attention should be paid to clinical application.
RESUMEN
The objective of present study was to compare the color stability of esthetic materials after application of fluoride varnishes. Esthetic restorative materials including composite resin (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE, MN, USA), resin modified glass-ionomer (RMGI, Fuji II LC, GC Co., Tokyo, Japan), and giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00, Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan) were used in this study. Cavity shield (3M ESPE, MN, USA) and V-varnish premium (Vericom, Seoul, Korea) were used as the fluoride varnishes. 30 samples of each restorative materials were prepared, which were divided into 10 each, among three groups. Group I were stored in distilled water, which were used as the control, Group II were applied with Cavity shield and Group III were applied with V-varnish premium. All specimens were stored in the distilled water at 60 ℃ for 30 days for the accelerated test. Samples were then subjected to colorimetric analysis. Data collected was statistically analyzed using one way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (p=0.05). The color change before and after application of varnish was observed in all experimental groups. Especially RMGI showed highest ΔE* value (p<0.05). The color change according to the accelerated test showed no significant difference in the varnish application group and the control group. Giomer and RMGI applied with Cavity shield showed more color change than V-varnish applied group, despite no significant differences. Present study concludes that color stability of esthetic restoration materials can be affected by application of fluoride varnish. Especially, RMGI showed a large color change compared to the composite resin and giomer, which suggested that careful attention should be paid to clinical application.