12-months color stability of direct resin composite veneers in anterior teeth: Clinical trial

Abstract EN

Background: this clinical trial aims to evaluate the color changes of direct resin composite veneer (DCV) restorations based on spectrophotometric analysis of 4 different types of resin composites between the baseline immediately after polishing and after one year of follow-up.

materials and methods: 28 patients were assessed for eligibility for participation, aged between 18 and 38 years old, who indicated for DCV restorations in anterior maxillary teeth were considered for participation in this study.

In total, 25 patients who met the inclusion criteria were selected (6 males and 19 females, mean age: 20.9 at the time of restoration placement), and 3 patients were excluded.

Participants were divided into four groups based on the type of composite resin used for restorations.

group 1 nanohybrid Ips Empress direct (Ivoclar Vivadent)] (IPS) (13 restorations / 6 patients), group 2 microfilled [Essentia (GC cooperation Japan)] (ES) (14 restorations / 7 patients), group 3 supra-nano filled [ Estelite ∑ quick (Tokuyama, Tokyo, Japan)] (EQ) (17 restorations / 7 patients) and group 4 nanofill [Filtek Ultimate (3M ESPE)] (FU) (13 restorations / 5 patients).

Baseline Color measurements were performed with a spectrophotometer immediately after finishing and polishing (baseline), and after one year of recall, color change (ΔE) from baseline values and after one year of follow-up of DCVs were calculated according to CIELab color coordinates.

For this, a silicone mold was fabricated for each patient and used as a guide for each measurement to standardize the site of the readings.

Statistical analysis of the data was applied using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn-Bonferroni posthoc test after controlling the distribution of data in terms of normality with the Shapiro Wilk test.

results: at the end of one year, 25 participants (57 restorations) were followed up.

the mean ΔE of IPS, EQ, and FU composites were higher than the ES composite resin, but there was no statically significant difference between all types of composites (P > 0.05).

There was no statistically significant difference in the mean ΔL* between any types of composite resin (p> 0.05).

There was a significant change in Δa* and Δb* after a one-year recall for all the types of DCV restorations (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: after one year of follow-up, the spectrophotometer measurements of direct resin composite veneer restorations, it was concluded no difference between the mean ΔE of ES, IPS, FU, and EQ resin composite.

ES (Microfilled hybrid) showed a lower mean ΔE value compared to the other groups.

all groups of resin composite showed color changes within clinically acceptable levels after a one-year follow-up.