Effects of mouthrinses on discoloration of CAD-CAM manufactured restorative materials.

PURPOSE: To investigate the in vitro effect of four different mouthrinses on discoloration of popular CAD-CAM blocks. METHODS: 40 specimens were prepared and then were divided into five groups (n = 8) for each CAD-CAM block (Vitablocks Mark II, IPS e-max CAD, GC LRF, Enamic, Cerasmart). In total, four different mouthrinses for each group (Listerine Zero, Parodontax, Kloroben, Oral B Pro-Expert) and distilled water for the control group were used. The specimens were immersed in 20 ml solution for 2 minutes, twice a day for 21 days with a 12-hour interval. Color changes were measured with a digital spectrophotometer (Vita Easyshade) after 7, 14 and 21 days and specimens were prepared. For statistical analysis, color changes ( ΔE) were calculated and Kruskal Wallis and Wilcoxon tests were used. RESULTS: There was not a significant difference in ΔE1 and ΔE2 values (P> 0.005) while there was a significant one in ΔE3 (P= 0.001) after Bonferroni correction for CAD-CAM materials were carried out as it is independent of the mouthrinse. Listerine Zero brought about the most noticeable color change in all CAD-CAM materials except e.Max after 21 days. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Discoloration effect of the tested mouthrinses on various CAD-CAM materials was different depending on the usage period. However, these differences did not exceed the clinically perceptible values.

Comparison of radiopacity of current restorative CAD/CAM blocks with digital radiography.

OBJECTIVE: While the radiopacity of restorative material affects the radiographic diagnosis of the teeth, there is no data about the radiopacity of current restorative computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) materials. Therefore, the present study compared the radiopacity values of current restorative CAD/CAM blocks to facilitate the material choice within such a wide variety of materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens were prepared from 13 different restorative CAD/CAM blocks to compare with enamel and dentin. The specimens placed on the occlusal phosphor plate were imaged with aluminum step wedge and tooth section. The radiopacity values were calculated using the Image J program. The radiopacity values of the specimens were converted to mmAl values with the Curve Expert 1.4 program. RESULTS: The difference between the radiopacity values of dentin and e.max CAD was not significant, however, they exhibited a significant difference from the other 14 groups (P < .05). Enamel and Obsidien, Suprinity, and Celtra Duo had greater radiopacity values with significant differences from the other 12 materials whereas the difference within these groups was not significant (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated restorative CAD/CAM materials have significantly different radiopacity values. Among these permanent restoration blocks, the highest radiopacity value was observed in Celtra Duo, the lowest in Block HC. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Cerasmart, Lava Ultimate, Obsidian, Vita Suprinity, Celtra Duo Blocks have adequate radiopacity for inlay, onlay and crown restorations, however, the use of Vita Enamic, Vita Mark II, GC LRF blocks and the others which have lower radiopacity value than dentin for the same kind of restorations depend on the radiopacity of the luting cement for the purpose of recurrent caries detection.