This study aimed to evaluate the impact of substrate color and interface distance on the color adjustment of 2 single-shade composites, Vittra APS Unique and Charisma Diamond One.

Dual disc-shaped specimens were created using Vittra APS Unique or Charisma Diamond One as the center composite, surrounded by shaded composites (A1 or A3). Color measurements were taken with a spectrophotometer against a gray background, recording the color coordinates in the CIELAB color space. Illumination with a light-correcting device and image acquisition using a polarizing filter-equipped cell phone were performed on specimens over the same background. Image processing software was used to measure the color coordinates in the center and periphery of the inner composite and in the outer composite. The color data were then converted to CIELAB coordinates and adjusted using data from the spectrophotometer. Color differences (ΔE₀₀) between the center/periphery of single-shade and outer composites were calculated, along with color changes in single-shade composites caused by different outer composites. Color differences for the inner composites surrounded by A1 and A3 were also calculated. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (α = 0.05).

The results showed that color discrepancies were lowest near the interface and when the outer composite was whiter (A1). Additionally, Charisma Diamond One exhibited better color adjustment ability than Vittra APS Unique.

Color discrepancies between the investigated single-shade composites diminished towards the interface with the surrounding composite, particularly when the latter exhibited a lighter shade.

This study aimed to evaluate the surrounding and underlying shades’ effect on the color adjustment potential (CAP) of a single-shade composite used in a thin layer.

Cylinder specimens (1.0 mm thick) were built with the Vittra APS Unique composite, surrounded (dual specimens) or not (simple specimens) by a control composite (shade A1, A2, or A3). Simple specimens were also built only with the control composites. Each specimen’s color was measured against white and black backgrounds or the simple control specimens with a spectrophotometer (CIELAB system). The whiteness index for dentistry (WI_D) and translucency parameters (TP₀₀) were calculated for simple specimens. Differences (ΔE₀₀) in color between the simple/dual specimens and the controls were calculated. The CAP was calculated based on the ratios between data from simple and dual specimens.

The Vittra APS Unique composite showed higher WI_D and TP₀₀ values than the controls. The highest values of ΔE₀₀ were observed among simple specimens. The color measurements of Vittra APS Unique (simple or dual) against the control specimens presented the lowest color differences. Only surrounding the single-shade composite with a shaded composite barely impacted the ΔE₀₀. The highest CAP values were obtained using a shaded composite under simple or dual specimens.

The CAP of Vittra APS Unique was strongly affected by the underlying shade, while surrounding this composite with a shaded one barely affected its color adjustment.

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of improper positioning single-peak and multi-peak lights on color change, microhardness of bottom and top, and surface topography of bulk fill and incremental composites after artificial aging for 1 year.

Bulk fill and incremental composites were cured using multi-peak and single-peak light-emitting diode (LED) following 4 clinical conditions: (1) optimal condition (no angulation or tip displacement), (2) tip-displacement (2 mm), (3) slight tip angulation (α = 20°) and (4) moderate tip angulation (α = 35°). After 1-year of water aging, the specimens were analyzed for color changes (ΔE), Vickers hardness, surface topography (Ra, Rt, and Rv), and scanning electron microscopy.

For samples cured by single-peak LED, the improper positioning significantly increases the color change compared to the optimal position regardless of the type of composite (p < 0.001). For multi-peak LED, the type of resin composite and the curing condition displayed a significant effect on ΔE (p < 0.001). For both LEDs, the Vickers hardness and bottom/top ratio of Vickers hardness were affected by the type of composite and the curing condition (p < 0.01).

The bulk fill composite presented greater resistance to wear, higher color stability, and better microhardness than the incremental composite when subjected to improper curing. The multi-peak LED improves curing under improper conditions compared to single-peak LED. Prevention of errors when curing composites requires the attention of all personnel involved in the patient's care once the clinical relevance of the appropriate polymerization reflects on reliable long-term outcomes.