KACD
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 40(4); 2015 > Article
- Research Article Effect of immersion into solutions at various pH on the color stability of composite resins with different shades
- Ji-Deok Moon1, Eun-Mi Seon1, Sung-Ae Son1, Kyoung-Hwa Jung1, Yong-Hoon Kwon2, Jeong-Kil Park1
-
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics 2015;40(4):270-276.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.4.270
Published online: August 28, 2015
1Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute, Yangsan, Korea.
2Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute, Yangsan, Korea.
- Correspondence to Jeong-Kil Park, DDS, MSD, PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, 20, Geumo-ro, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan, 50612, Korea. TEL, +82-55-360-5221; FAX, +82-55-360-5214; jeongkil@pusan.ac.kr
• Received: May 21, 2015 • Accepted: July 2, 2015
©Copyrights 2015. The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 17 Views
- 0 Download
Abstract
-
Objectives This study examined the color changes of a resin composite with different shades upon exposure to water with different pH.
-
Materials and Methods Nanohybrid resin composites (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE) with four different shades (A2, A3, B1, and B2) were immersed in water with three different pH (pH 3, 6, and 9) for 14 day. The CIE L*a*b* color coordinates of the specimens were evaluated before and after immersion in the solutions. The color difference (ΔE*) and the translucency parameter (TP) were calculated using the color coordinates.
-
Results ΔE* ranged from 0.33 to 1.58, and the values were affected significantly by the pH. The specimens immersed in a pH 6 solution showed the highest ΔE* values (0.87 - 1.58). The specimens with a B1 shade showed the lowest ΔE* change compared to the other shades. TP ranged from 7.01 to 9.46 depending on the pH and resin shade. The TP difference between before and after immersion in the pH solutions was less than 1.0.
-
Conclusions The resulting change of color of the tested specimens did not appear to be clinically problematic because the color difference was < 1.6 in the acidic, neutral, and alkaline solutions regardless of the resin shade, i.e., the color change was imperceptible.
Introduction
Esthetic dental materials are used widely in modern restorative dentistry because of their excellent harmony with natural teeth. Among them, resin composites are the most popular restorative materials. The advantage of resin composites for restoration would be a color match to the adjacent teeth with a wide range of shade options as well as agreeable mechanical properties that are high enough to sustain a range of mastication loads. On the other hand, previous studies reported that restorative resin composites are discolored when exposed to the diverse oral environment.1,2,3
The discoloration of resin composites might be mediated by water. Chemical degradation can occur if resin composite absorbs water and other colorants because water is an excellent solvent. Chemical degradation can lead to corrosive wear of the resin surface through softening and hydrolytic processes. As the corroded layer is worn out because of mastication or tooth brushing, a fresh surface is exposed and the corrosion cycle continues. Clinically, this can lead to a loss of restoration contour, as well as an increase in surface roughness, and discoloration.2,4 Generally, the optical and physical properties of resin composites are affected by the length of degradation.
A range of factors affect the speed of the degradation reaction. Among them, the filler, matrix, type of chemical bond, pH, copolymer composition and water uptake are important. In particular, pH is an unfavorable factor for hydrophilic resins because it affects the degradation rates through catalysis.5 In the oral cavity, pH varies according to the oral environment and tooth surface conditions.6 Acids produced by the bacterial metabolism, such as acetic, propionic and lactic acid can change pH.7 Alkaline beverages, such as mineral water, ion beverages, green tea, and herbal tea, are also potential sources of pH variations. Ideally, polymers of resin composites should not be degraded in an oral environment, in which the pH changes dynamically in an aqueous medium.8 According to previous studies, a lower pH had been shown to have an adverse effect on the wear resistance of resin composites.5,7 In addition, highly alkaline solutions have been shown to accelerate hydrolysis and produce surface microstructural damage.9
On the other hand, the influence of pH on the color stability of resin composites has not been studied sufficiently. Thus far, previous studies focused mainly on the influence of tea, coffee, and soft drinks on the color stability of glass ionomer cements, resin veneers, indirect composites, provisional resin materials, and compomers.3,10,11,12 However the limitation of their studies was that they did not explain whether color change was cause by the pH or by the colorant in the drink solutions.
In order to exclude the effect of colorant in the solutions, this study examined the effects of water with different pH on the color stability of restorative resin composites with different shades. For the study, the color difference (ΔE*) and translucency parameter (TP) of one resin composite with four different shades under three pH conditions were evaluated to test the color stability.
Materials and Methods
For the study, a resin composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) with four different shades (A2, A3, B1, and B2) was used. An LED light-curing unit (L.E.Demetron, Kerr, Danbury, CT, USA) was used for light curing. To prepare the specimens, a metal ring mold (inner diameter, 8 mm; thickness, 2 mm; n = 30 for each shade) was filled with resin and light cured for 40 seconds under a light intensity of 1,000 mW/cm2. The light cured specimens were then removed from the mold and aged for 24 hours in a 37℃ dark and dry chamber. The specimens (n = 10) were then immersed into three pH solutions (pH 3, 6, and 9), respectively, for 14 days. To produce the pH solutions, distilled water was mixed with diluted acetic acid to prepare the solutions at pH 3 and 6. A solution at pH 9 was prepared by mixing dilute NaOH with distilled water. Mixing with acetic acid or NaOH was performed under slowly stirring condition using a magnetic bar. All the processes were conducted at 23 ± 1℃ under 60 ± 3% relative humidity.
A spectrophotometer (CM-3600d, Konica Minolta, Osaka, Japan) was used to measure the color of the specimens. The stored specimens for 24 hours were selected (n = 10) for the first color measurements. The initial color of the light-cured specimens was measured by placing the specimen at the center of the target mask in reflectance (%R) mode with white and black backgrounds, respectively. This target mask had a 6 mm hole at the center. This hole enables consistency in specimen placement during the measurements. After the first color measurement, each specimen was immersed in the designated test solution for 14 days. During immersion, the solution was replaced daily. After 14 days, the specimens were removed from the test solution, rinsed with running water, and spot dried with tissue paper. The second color measurement was performed using the immersed specimens (n = 10) under the same measurement conditions as before. From the measured reflectance data, the CIE L*a*b* color coordinates were evaluated using the internal software of the measurement system. The ΔE* was obtained using the following formula:
where Δ is the difference between the first and second measurements. Here, L* represents the degree of grayness, and corresponds to lightness. The parameter a* represents the red - green axis, whereas b* is a parameter for the blue - yellow axis.
The TP values were determined by calculating the color difference between the readings using the following formula:
where the subscripts 'B' and 'W' refer to the color coordinates over a black and a white background, respectively. The change in the translucency parameter, ΔTP (TP after immersion minus TP before immersion), was calculated for each specimen.
SPSS 15.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The results of the color change were analyzed using two-way ANOVA for the resin shade and pH of the solution. A post hoc Tukey test was performed followed by a multiple comparison procedure. All tests were analyzed at p < 0.05.
Results
Tables 1 and 2 list the CIE L*a*b* color coordinates and color changes of the specimens before and after immersion in the test solutions. The specimens of A2 and A3 shades have lower L* and higher b* values than those of the B1 and B2 shades. L* values increased after immersion in test solutions except in pH 3. The ΔL*, Δa*, and Δb* values ranged from -0.30 to 1.40, -0.19 to 0.12, and -0.69 to 0.17, respectively, depending on pH. The difference among each coordinate was less than 1.5. In the pH 6 solution, ΔL* had higher tendency than in other pH solutions regardless of shade.
Table 3 shows the ΔE* of the specimens before and after immersion in pH solutions. ΔE* of the tested specimens were significantly different among three pH solutions (p < 0.05). In the pH 6 solution, ΔE* was significantly higher than others, but the color difference was only slight (ΔE*, 0.33 - 1.58). For shades of resin composite, ΔE* of A2 shade was significantly different from B1 shade (p < 0.05). Other shades were not significantly different from others.
Table 4 shows the TP values and TP difference (ΔTP) of the specimens between the values before and after immersion in the pH solutions for 14 days. TP after immersion of pH solutions had a decreasing tendency except for pH 3 solution, but the absolute values of ΔTP in all pH solutions were very low (0.12 - 0.95).
Discussion
Tooth-colored restorative dental materials are attractive because of the harmonious match with the host teeth by satisfying the aesthetic requirements of a range of users. The restored dental materials are influenced by the dynamic changes in the environment in the oral cavity. In particular, foods and beverages have a wide range of pH because of their diverse ingredients and have a significant effect on the restored resin composites in the tooth cavity.
Previous studies reported that acidic conditions can degrade resin composites.8,11,13 According to Poggio et al., cola had the lowest pH (2.55) and might damage the surface integrity of resin composites.14 The probable degradation of resin composite might be due to the acid-related hydrolysis of ester radicals present in the dimethacrylate monomers, such as bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate (Bis-EMA), urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA).8 On the other hand, Buchalla et al. reported that storage in acidic solutions had very little effect on resin-based luting cements.15 Eisenburger et al. observed no significant differences between the resin luting cement surface profiles after 7 days immersion in citric acid and saline, respectively.16
Recently, Cilli et al. reported that an alkaline medium appears to be more suitable for accelerating composite hydrolysis and producing microstructural damage than acidic media.9 According to their study, the strong influence of the alkaline medium on the composite properties was attributed to their interactions with OH ions during the hydrolysis process. At a pH of 13, an alkaline medium provides a million times as many hydroxyl ions as are present in solutions at neutral pH or low pH. In addition to the possibility of hydrolytic degradation of silane couplers and fillers, it is also possible to induce hydrolysis of the inorganic particles themselves with an excess of OH ions.
From the result of others studies, high color change in acidic (pH 3) or alkaline (pH 9) solution was expected due to hydrolysis of resin composites.9,11,13,14 In contrast, the results of this study were the opposite. In this study, ΔE* of the tested specimens were significantly different among three pH solutions (p < 0.05). In the pH 6 solution, ΔE* was significantly higher than the others due to the higher ΔL* value. On the other hand, the absolute of ΔE* was also low (at best 1.58) because the absolute value of ΔL* was low (at best 1.40).
According to individual ability of the human eye to appreciate differences in color, three different intervals were used to distinguish the changes in color values, that is, ΔE* < 1, imperceptible by the human eye; 1.0 < ΔE* < 3.3, appreciated only by skilled person, both clinically acceptable; ΔE* > 3.3, easily observed, these color changes are not clinically acceptable.17,18 Overall, the resulting change of color of the specimens immersed in the pH 6 solution cannot be easily perceptible and is clinically acceptable. In the case of resin shade, there was significant difference between A2 and B1, but the absolute value of difference was also very slight. Clinical importance was also negligible. Likewise, TP after immersion of pH solutions had a tendency to decrease except for pH 3 solution but the absolute values of ΔTP in all pH solutions were very low (0.12 - 0.95). These results indicate a similar but imperceptibly low color change to the specimens by different pH solutions that can occur in the oral cavity.
The limitation of this study is the static effect of the pH solutions. The oral cavity is always under dynamic stresses, such as temperature variations, wear by mastication activity, and pH variations due to the different foods and beverages. Moreover, it is unclear if such minor color changes observed in the present study are relevant. Therefore, further study will be needed to evaluate the color changes under such dynamic environments.
Conclusions
Within the limitation of this study, ΔE* of the tested specimens were significantly different between the pH solutions. However, from the results of this study, the resulting color change was too low to be perceived by the naked eyes. Therefore, such small color changes can be free of the clinical issues arising from the aesthetic requirements.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Financial Supporting Project of Long-term Overseas Dispatch of PNU's Tenuretrack Faculty, 2014.
-
Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
ARTICLE INFORMATION
- 1. Uchida H, Vaidyanathan J, Viswanadhan T, Vaidyanathan TK. Color stability of dental composites as a function of shade. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:372-377. ArticlePubMed
- 2. Correr GM, Bruschi Alonso RC, Baratto-Filho F, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA, Puppin-Rontani RM. In vitro long-term degradation of aesthetic restorative materials in food-simulating media. Acta Odontol Scand 2012;70:101-108. ArticlePubMed
- 3. Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas M. Influence of food simulating solutions and surface finish on susceptibility to staining of aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent 2005;33:389-398. PubMed
- 4. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-269. ArticlePubMed
- 5. Göpferich A. Mechanisms of polymer degradation and erosion. Biomaterials 1996;17:103-114. ArticlePubMed
- 6. Lingström P, Imfeld T, Birkhed D. Comparison of three different methods for measurements of plaque-pH in humans after consumption of soft bread and potato chips. J Dent Res 1993;72:865-870. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 7. Chadwick RG, McCabe JF, Walls AW, Storer R. The effect of storage media upon the surface microhardness and abrasion resistance of three composites. Dent Mater 1990;6:123-128. ArticlePubMed
- 8. Prakki A, Cilli R, Mondelli RF, Kalachandra S, Pereira JC. Influence of pH environment on polymer based dental material properties. J Dent 2005;33:91-98. PubMed
- 9. Cilli R, Pereira JC, Prakki A. Properties of dental resins submitted to pH catalysed hydrolysis. J Dent 2012;40:1144-1150. PubMed
- 10. Guler AU, Yilmaz F, Kulunk T, Guler E, Kurt S. Effects of different drinks on stainability of resin composite provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:118-124. PubMed
- 11. Turssi CP, Hara AT, Serra MC, Rodrigues AL Jr. Effect of storage media upon the surface micromorphology of resin-based restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:864-871. ArticlePubMed
- 12. Um CM, Ruyter IE. Staining of resin-based veneering materials with coffee and tea. Quintessence Int 1991;22:377-386. PubMed
- 13. Ortengren U, Andersson F, Elgh U, Terselius B, Karlsson S. Influence of pH and storage time on the sorption and solubility behavior of three composite resin materials. J Dent 2001;29:35-41. PubMed
- 14. Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Scribante A. Surface roughness of flowable resin composites eroded by acidic and alcoholic drinks. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:137-140. PubMedPMC
- 15. Buchalla W, Attin T, Hellwig E. Brushing abrasion of luting cements under neutral and acidic conditions. Oper Dent 2000;25:482-487. PubMed
- 16. Eisenburger M, Addy M, Rossbach A. Acidic solubility of luting cements. J Dent 2003;31:137-142. ArticlePubMed
- 17. Abu-Bakr N, Han L, Okamoto A, Iwaku M. Color stability of compomer after immersion in various media. J Esthet Dent 2000;12:258-263. ArticlePubMed
- 18. Vichi A, Ferrari M, Davidson CL. Color and opacity variations in three different resin-based composite products after water aging. Dent Mater 2004;20:530-534. PubMed
REFERENCES
Table 1
CIE L*a*b* color coordinate values before and after immersion in test solutions for 14 days
Table 2
Changes of color coordinates (ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*) after immersion in test solutions for 14 days
Table 3
Color changes (ΔE*) in the specimens of various shades after 14 days immersion in the test solutions
| pH 31 | pH 62 | pH 93 | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A2A | 0.46 ± 0.16 | 1.51 ± 0.58 | 0.91 ± 0.14 | α = 0.003 |
| A3AB | 0.33 ± 0.09 | 1.58 ± 0.16 | 0.63 ± 0.11 | β < 0.001 |
| B1B | 0.36 ± 0.07 | 0.87 ± 0.25 | 0.56 ± 0.33 | α × β = 0.03 |
| B2AB | 0.53 ± 0.18 | 1.19 ± 0.30 | 0.65 ± 0.24 |
*Statistically significant difference in shade is shown by superscript lettersA,B within the column, and on concentration of the agent by superscript numbers within the row1,2,3. Groups with same letters or numbers are not significantly different (p < 0.05).
*On p values, the letters α and β denote the main effect of the shade and pH of the agent, respectively.
Table 4
Translucency parameter (TP) values before and after immersion in test solutions for 14 days
Tables & Figures
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
ePub Link
Cite
XML DownloadEffect of immersion into solutions at various pH on the color stability of composite resins with different shades
Effect of immersion into solutions at various pH on the color stability of composite resins with different shades
CIE L*a*b* color coordinate values before and after immersion in test solutions for 14 days
| Code | Before immersion (24 hr) | After immersion (14 day) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L* | a* | b* | L* | a* | b* | ||
| A2 | 3 | 53.99 ± 0.45 | -1.50 ± 0.07 | 6.52 ± 0.09 | 53.83 ± 0.52 | -1.60 ± 0.09 | 6.12 ± 0.15 |
| 6 | 52.87 ± 0.44 | -1.59 ± 0.04 | 6.50 ± 0.18 | 54.17 ± 0.26 | -1.63 ± 0.06 | 5.81 ± 0.22 | |
| 9 | 53.65 ± 0.20 | -1.65 ± 0.03 | 6.38 ± 0.18 | 54.55 ± 0.34 | -1.59 ± 0.04 | 6.42 ± 0.21 | |
| A3 | 3 | 52.90 ± 0.17 | -0.33 ± 0.02 | 7.91 ± 0.13 | 52.69 ± 0.23 | -0.40 ± 0.03 | 7.68 ± 0.08 |
| 6 | 52.07 ± 0.14 | -0.27 ± 0.06 | 8.01 ± 0.28 | 53.48 ± 0.27 | -0.45 ± 0.03 | 7.32 ± 0.28 | |
| 9 | 52.72 ± 0.14 | -0.37 ± 0.01 | 8.00 ± 0.11 | 53.31 ± 0.17 | -0.33 ± 0.02 | 7.83 ± 0.11 | |
| B1 | 3 | 57.98 ± 0.23 | -1.31 ± 0.04 | 1.76 ± 0.11 | 57.68 ± 0.21 | -1.34 ± 0.03 | 1.57 ± 0.06 |
| 6 | 57.34 ± 0.19 | -1.36 ± 0.01 | 1.94 ± 0.10 | 58.12 ± 0.28 | -1.33 ± 0.06 | 1.58 ± 0.17 | |
| 9 | 57.94 ± 0.12 | -1.37 ± 0.04 | 1.80 ± 0.07 | 58.47 ± 0.39 | -1.26 ± 0.02 | 1.91 ± 0.08 | |
| B2 | 3 | 55.91 ± 0.14 | -1.32 ± 0.04 | 3.98 ± 0.06 | 55.61 ± 0.29 | -1.40 ± 0.07 | 3.59 ± 0.15 |
| 6 | 55.04 ± 0.23 | -1.27 ± 0.01 | 4.11 ± 0.22 | 56.18 ± 0.25 | -1.30 ± 0.04 | 3.81 ± 0.09 | |
| 9 | 56.03 ± 0.27 | -1.29 ± 0.03 | 4.04 ± 0.16 | 56.63 ± 0.22 | -1.16 ± 0.03 | 4.21 ± 0.14 | |
Codes: 3, pH 3; 6, pH 6; 9, pH 9.
Changes of color coordinates (ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*) after immersion in test solutions for 14 days
| Code | ΔL* | Δa* | Δb* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A2 | 3 | -0.16 ± 0.18 | -0.05 ± 0.05 | -0.40 ± 0.15 |
| 6 | 1.30 ± 0.66 | -0.04 ± 0.05 | -0.69 ± 0.19 | |
| 9 | 0.90 ± 0.15 | 0.06 ± 0.05 | 0.03 ± 0.09 | |
| A3 | 3 | -0.21 ± 0.07 | -0.07 ± 0.03 | -0.23 ± 0.13 |
| 6 | 1.40 ± 0.19 | -0.19 ± 0.05 | -0.69 ± 0.13 | |
| 9 | 0.60 ± 0.09 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | -0.17 ± 0.11 | |
| B1 | 3 | -0.29 ± 0.04 | -0.02 ± 0.05 | -0.19 ± 0.10 |
| 6 | 0.78 ± 0.28 | 0.02 ± 0.06 | -0.36 ± 0.09 | |
| 9 | 0.52 ± 0.34 | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.11 ± 0.13 | |
| B2 | 3 | -0.30 ± 0.23 | -0.09 ± 0.03 | -0.39 ± 0.11 |
| 6 | 1.14 ± 0.31 | -0.03 ± 0.03 | -0.30 ± 0.21 | |
| 9 | 0.59 ± 0.25 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.18 | |
Codes: 3, pH 3; 6, pH 6; 9, pH 9.
Color changes (ΔE*) in the specimens of various shades after 14 days immersion in the test solutions
| pH 3 | pH 6 | pH 9 | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A2A | 0.46 ± 0.16 | 1.51 ± 0.58 | 0.91 ± 0.14 | α = 0.003 |
| A3AB | 0.33 ± 0.09 | 1.58 ± 0.16 | 0.63 ± 0.11 | β < 0.001 |
| B1B | 0.36 ± 0.07 | 0.87 ± 0.25 | 0.56 ± 0.33 | α × β = 0.03 |
| B2AB | 0.53 ± 0.18 | 1.19 ± 0.30 | 0.65 ± 0.24 |
*Statistically significant difference in shade is shown by superscript lettersA,B within the column, and on concentration of the agent by superscript numbers within the row
*On p values, the letters α and β denote the main effect of the shade and pH of the agent, respectively.
Translucency parameter (TP) values before and after immersion in test solutions for 14 days
| Code | ΔL* | Δa* | Δb* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A2 | 3 | 7.95 ± 0.88 | 8.07 ± 0.94 | 0.12 ± 0.07 |
| 6 | 9.46 ± 0.58 | 8.65 ± 0.35 | -0.81 ± 0.52 | |
| 9 | 9.00 ± 0.35 | 8.05 ± 0.26 | -0.95 ± 0.22 | |
| A3 | 3 | 7.70 ± 0.44 | 7.86 ± 0.17 | 0.16 ± 0.33 |
| 6 | 8.59 ± 0.43 | 7.99 ± 0.31 | -0.60 ± 0.13 | |
| 9 | 9.00 ± 0.35 | 7.58 ± 0.36 | -0.95 ± 0.22 | |
| B1 | 3 | 7.10 ± 0.56 | 7.33 ± 0.53 | 0.24 ± 0.08 |
| 6 | 8.31 ± 0.24 | 7.55 ± 0.28 | -0.76 ± 0.18 | |
| 9 | 7.83 ± 0.43 | 7.18 ± 0.23 | -0.66 ± 0.32 | |
| B2 | 3 | 8.54 ± 0.20 | 8.91 ± 0.25 | 0.37 ± 0.07 |
| 6 | 8.85 ± 0.20 | 8.08 ± 0.09 | -0.77 ± 0.26 | |
| 9 | 8.07 ± 0.22 | 7.29 ± 0.35 | -0.78 ± 0.23 | |
Codes: 3, pH 3; 6, pH 6; 9, pH 9.
ΔTP (TP after 14 days immersion minus before immersion) was calculated for each specimen.
Table 1 CIE L*a*b* color coordinate values before and after immersion in test solutions for 14 days
Codes: 3, pH 3; 6, pH 6; 9, pH 9.
Table 2 Changes of color coordinates (ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*) after immersion in test solutions for 14 days
Codes: 3, pH 3; 6, pH 6; 9, pH 9.
Table 3 Color changes (ΔE*) in the specimens of various shades after 14 days immersion in the test solutions
*Statistically significant difference in shade is shown by superscript lettersA,B within the column, and on concentration of the agent by superscript numbers within the row *On
Table 4 Translucency parameter (TP) values before and after immersion in test solutions for 14 days
Codes: 3, pH 3; 6, pH 6; 9, pH 9.
