Influence of background color on color perception in dentistry.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of neutral color backgrounds on the perception of color differences in dentistry. METHODS: A software was developed for this study that calculated the perceptibility (PT) and acceptability (AT) thresholds of color differences between a pair of computer-simulated incisor samples (n = 60 pairs) over three neutral color (white, gray and black) backgrounds. CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color difference formulas were used. Five groups of volunteer observers (N = 100) participated in the psychophysical experiment (n = 20): Dentists; Dental students; Dental auxiliaries; Dental technicians; and Laypersons. The psychophysical experiment was performed in a dark environment on a calibrated high-resolution screen. To determine PT and AT values, the 60 pairs of samples were randomly presented to each observer over the different backgrounds. The data were adjusted (TSK Fuzzy) and analyzed statistically using Student t-test and ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Regardless of the metric and the background used, the PT values showed no difference among different observers (p > 0.05). Dentists showed the lowest PT values. Dental technicians showed the lowest AT (p ≤ 0.05) and similar values for the three backgrounds (p > 0.05), regardless of the metric used. The other groups of observers showed the lowest and the highest AT values when using black and white backgrounds, respectively (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The lowest AT values using a black background indicates that the use of this background allows for the evaluation of slight color differences, and should be used for challenging color differences in esthetic dentistry. This study showed the influence of the observer experience on color evaluation in dentistry. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: There was no influence of the background color on the perceptibility threshold. However, dentists and dental technicians showed greater ability to perceive slight color differences compared to other groups of observers.

How does the piston material affect the in vitro mechanical behavior of dental ceramics?

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Variables involving the indication, manufacturing, and clinical use of ceramic restorations make the standardization of in vitro studies a challenge and raise questions as to the clinical validity of the resulting data. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of piston material on the fracture behavior of ceramics tested under compressive load. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two ceramics were evaluated: a lithium disilicate-based glass-ceramic (D) and a feldspathic porcelain (P). Plate-shaped ceramic specimens (1.5-mm thick) were adhesively cemented onto a dentin analog substrate. The specimens from each ceramic were divided into 4 groups according to the piston material (n=20): metal (M) (stainless steel), composite resin (R) (NEMA-G10, fiber-reinforced epoxy resin), ceramic (C) (lithium disilicate-based glass-ceramic), and human tooth (T) (canine). A gradual compressive load (0.5 mm/min) was applied to the center of the specimen with a universal testing machine. The test was performed in 37°C distilled water, and the initial crack was detected by using an acoustic system. The fracture load values (N) were statistically analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α=.05). A finite element analysis (FEA) was also performed. RESULTS: Piston material had no influence on fracture load and failure mode of ceramic D. Ceramic P showed higher fracture load values when loaded with the composite resin piston. Ceramic P showed more combined failures (cone crack and radial crack) than D. The FEA showed a distinct stress distribution for R piston on P. Pistons C and T resulted in similar stress distribution, fracture load, and failure mode for both ceramics. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of piston material on the ceramic fracture behavior depends on the ceramic being evaluated.