d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1584–1589

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Influence of thickness on color in multi-layering technique

Alessandro Vichi a,b,∗ , Alessia Fraioli a , Carel L. Davidson c , Marco Ferrari a,b
a University of Siena, Siena, Italy
b Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
c Academic Center for Dentistry ACTA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of layer thickness on the
Received 10 May 2006 final color for different shade and opacity composite combinations in a laboratory set-up
Received in revised form simulating a 2-layer stratification technique.
16 April 2007 Methods. Resin disks of different thicknesses were made. From one composite system (Point4,
Accepted 18 June 2007 Kerr Co.), four dentin shades were selected (A1, A2, A3, A4). For each shade, disks were pro-
duced of 0.5–3.0 mm thickness, with increasing thickness steps of 0.5 mm. Moreover, from
the three translucent shades of the same system (T1, T2, T3) disks were made of 0.5–2.0 mm
Keywords: thickness, again with increasing thickness steps of 0.5 mm. For all 288 combinations of
Dental materials base + translucent material color was determined with a spectrophotometer.
Color Results. For a mounting layer thickness from 0.5 to 3.0 mm of the base material, differences
Composites till to !E = 5.1 were recorded. These differences increased when the layer thickness of the
Layering technique translucent material decreased. The translucent shade also influence the final aspect of the
samples, whereas each translucent shade acted differently dependent on their shade and
their thickness. Their layer thickness played a significant role in color perception.
Significance. Layer thickness and the proportion of thicknesses of the dentin and translucent
shade greatly influence the final aspect of a multi-layer composite restoration. Good under-
standing of the optical behavior of each composite system is essential in order to obtain
high quality in aesthetic dentistry.
© 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Academy of Dental Materials. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Initially, manufactures paid most attention to composite

The greatest advantage of resin-based composites in dentistry
is almost certainly the possibility of employing adhesive tech-
niques, thus minimising the sacrifice of sound tooth structure
for the sake of retention. Next to that comes the widely appre-
ciated esthetic potential. In order to obtain optimal “natural
looks”, diverse shades and opacities of a composite have
to be employed for one single restoration. Indeed, layering
techniques are required to mimic the complex anatomy and
optical appearance of natural teeth.
products delivered in a wide scale of colors, while only more
recently, composites in varying degrees of opacity are also
offered. Now it is possible to imitate aspects of the natural
tooth such as high translucent margins and specific shade and
reflectance of the bulk. Still, color matching remains problem-
atic. The traditional shade guides are no longer of great help as
they usually are incapable of assisting the clinician in simu-
lating the final esthetic result. In fact, the esthetic outcome
is no longer determined by the “basic shade”, but depends
on the sophisticated blending of colors and the placement of

Corresponding author at: Via Derna 4, 58100 Grosseto (GR) Italy. Tel.: +39 056425384; fax: +39 056425384.
∗

E-mail address: vichialessandro@virgilio.it (A. Vichi).

0109-5641/$ – see front matter © 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Academy of Dental Materials. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.026
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1584–1589
layers of diverse optical quality. This can, for example be done
by employing two layers of composite of different degrees of
opacity, one more opaque and able to mimic the optical prop-
erties of the dentin, and one less opaque, more close to the
enamel aspect.
The degree of opacity of these materials, the thickness
of all materials together, as well as the ratio between the
thicknesses of the diverse layers, form parameters that may
influence the final esthetic result, as much as simply the shade
of the composite.
For this study a recently formulated composite was
selected, which is characterized by filler particles with 77%
having an average diameter of 0.4 !m. This dimension (being
the dimension compatible with the visible light wavelength
range), as well as the narrow bandwidth of particle distri-
bution are, for the manufacturer, arguments claiming optical
performance similar to natural teeth.
The aim of this research was to evaluate the influence of
the combination of different shades, opacities and thicknesses
on aspects of the final color, as a laboratory simulation of a
clinical 2-layer stratification technique.
2. Materials and methods
For this study, the resin-based composite system Point4
(Sybron-Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) was selected. Four base shades
were selected (A1, A2, A3, A4) and three translucent shades
(T1, T2, T3).
For the evaluation of the different combinations of shade,
opacity and thickness, disks of the composite were made with
an applicable device [4] that enabled the production of sam-
ples of 15 mm diameter and certain thickness. This device
consists of a steel mold into which the restorative mate-
rial is placed. After applying the material, a Mylar film was
pressed over the surface with a 1 mm thick glass plate. Great
attention was given to obtain flat samples and to prevent bub-
ble inclusions. After 10 s curing with a polymerization lamp
(L.E.Demetron 1, Sybron-Kerr), the glass plate was removed,
leaving only the Mylar matrix in place to position the optical
fiber tip closer to the sample. Then the samples were poly-
merized for another 50 s. No finishing techniques were used.
The thickness of the samples was carefully measured with
a 10 !m-resolution digital calliper (1651 DGT, Beta Industry,
Milan, Italy). As a pilot-study showed that variations in sam-
ple thickness could influence the results, only samples that did
not differ more than 10 !m in thickness were involved in this
study. For each of the four dentin shades, samples of 0.5, 1.0,
1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 mm thickness were prepared. For each of the
three translucent shade disks of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 mm thickness
were prepared. Specimens were stored at room temperature
for 24 h to allow for post-cure.
For color measurements, a spectrophotometer (PSD1000
Ocean Optics, FL, USA), equipped with an integrating sphere
(ISP-REF Ocean Optics), with a 10 mm opening was used. The
spectrophotometer was connected with a computer running
OOILab 1.0 (Ocean Optics) in L*a*b* system as color measure-
ment software. D65 illumination and 10◦ standard observation
angle were selected. A 50% gray card (Kodak Co, Rochester,
USA) was used to obtain a neutral background [5].
1585
The output values of each sample were given over 10-scan
settings to improve the accuracy of the readings.
The samples were piled up on the integrating sphere open-
ing, first the translucent disk and subsequently the opaque
(dentin color) disk, and the background grey card.
Each specimen of the dentin color composites (4 shades
and 6 thicknesses, in total 24 specimens) in combinations with
all the translucent shades (3 shades and 4 thicknesses, in total
12 specimens), was inspected by spectrophotometer. A total of
288 combinations were investigated.
By applying the formula !E = [(!L*)2 + (!a*)2 + (!b*)2 ]1/2 as
proposed by Clarke [1] and widely used for color comparisons,
it was possible to calculate !E and to compare the material
combinations. Because the ability of the human eye to appre-
ciate color differences varies from individual to individual (as
it is a combination of eye characteristics and operator skill),
two different intervals were used for distinguishing color dif-
ferences [2].
Values of !E ≤ 3.3, even if eye-perceptible by a skilled oper-
ator, were regarded as clinically acceptable. Values of !E > 3.3
were considered as distinguishable also by a not skilled sub-
ject like a patient and therefore, clinically not acceptable
[2,6,14–16].
3. Results
The results are shown in Tables 1–3.
The columns denoted with T at the far left represent the
various translucent shades T1, T2 and T3 for mounting layer
thicknesses, while the corresponding opaque shades A1, A2,
A3 and A4 with their respective thicknesses are listed in the
columns denoted by Base. For each assemblage of a T and an
A layer, !E values are listed in the adjacent column. Each !E
value in the left rows represents the difference between the
former combination and the one of the row where the !E value
is reported. This value indicates the color variation for each
incremental thickness step in dentin shade.
The second !E values (right !E columns) represent the
differences between the assemblage with the minimum total
thickness and the assemblage in the row where the !E value
is reported. This second value expresses the increase in color
difference when the thickness of the base material increases.
In the evaluation of the results it is necessary to point
out that !E represents the distance between two points on a
sphere, being the Lab* color space coordinate system. As such,
the !E value denotes the difference between two sets of val-
ues, considered as one set of L*, a* and b* values. Therefore, this
reference method of calculation is only valid for measuring the
difference between two single colors.
4. Discussion and conclusion
Although delivered in a wide range of excellent colors,
resin-based composites exhibit shortcomings when perfect
esthetics is required. To enable the reproduction of the esthetic
aspects of natural teeth not only color but also texture, opac-
ity and translucency are important characteristics. In order
to combine strength and surface gloss, a combined applica-
tion of hybrid and microfill composites was suggested [3],
1586 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1584–1589

Table 1 – Value measured for layering with T1 shade (Translucent 1—A1, A2, A3, A4 base)
T Base !E !E Base !E !E Base !E !E Base !E !E

T1 0.5 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5

T1 0.5 A1 1.0 1.9 1.9 A2 1.0 2.7 2.7 A3 1.0 1.3 1.3 A4 1.0 1.0 1.0
T1 0.5 A1 1.5 1.2 3.1 A2 1.5 1.1 2.5 A3 1.5 0.2 1.4 A4 1.5 0.9 1.1
T1 0.5 A1 2.0 0.7 3.7 A2 2.0 0.7 2.3 A3 2.0 0.7 1.7 A4 2.0 0.8 1.1
T1 0.5 A1 2.5 0.9 4.5 A2 2.5 1.0 3.0 A3 2.5 0.2 1.8 A4 2.5 0.3 1.1
T1 0.5 A1 3.0 0.8 5.1 A2 3.0 0.2 2.9 A3 3.0 0.2 1.9 A4 3.0 0.6 1.5
T1 1.0 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5
T1 1.0 A1 1.0 1.2 1.2 A2 1.0 1.3 1.3 A3 1.0 1.1 1.1 A4 1.0 1.3 1.3
T1 1.0 A1 1.5 0.8 2.0 A2 1.5 0.8 1.7 A3 1.5 0.6 0.9 A4 1.5 0.9 0.6
T1 1.0 A1 2.0 0.5 1.9 A2 2.0 1.1 1.6 A3 2.0 0.7 1.3 A4 2.0 0.7 0.5
T1 1.0 A1 2.5 1.4 3.1 A2 2.5 0.6 1.9 A3 2.5 0.5 1.4 A4 2.5 0.8 0.8
T1 1.0 A1 3.0 0.9 2.2 A2 3.0 0.5 1.7 A3 3.0 0.2 1.5 A4 3.0 0.3 0.6
T1 1.5 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5
T1 1.5 A1 1.0 0.8 0.8 A2 1.0 0.5 0.5 A3 1.0 0.7 0.7 A4 1.0 1.4 1.4
T1 1.5 A1 1.5 0.4 0.7 A2 1.5 0.3 0.8 A3 1.5 0.3 0.8 A4 1.5 0.4 1.7
T1 1.5 A1 2.0 0.8 1.1 A2 2.0 0.6 1.3 A3 2.0 0.6 0.8 A4 2.0 0.3 1.4
T1 1.5 A1 2.5 1.1 1.2 A2 2.5 0.3 1.0 A3 2.5 0.2 0.8 A4 2.5 0.7 0.8
T1 1.5 A1 3.0 0.5 1.1 A2 3.0 0.3 1.2 A3 3.0 0.4 1.1 A4 3.0 0.3 0.6
T1 2.0 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5
T1 2.0 A1 1.0 1.0 1.0 A2 1.0 0.5 0.5 A3 1.0 0.7 0.7 A4 1.0 1.1 1.1
T1 2.0 A1 1.5 0.5 1.2 A2 1.5 0.5 0.7 A3 1.5 0.3 0.5 A4 1.5 0.7 0.4
T1 2.0 A1 2.0 0.2 1.4 A2 2.0 0.2 0.8 A3 2.0 0.3 0.7 A4 2.0 0.2 0.3
T1 2.0 A1 2.5 0.3 1.3 A2 2.5 0.6 0.9 A3 2.5 0.2 0.9 A4 2.5 1.1 1.3
T1 2.0 A1 3.0 0.2 1.2 A2 3.0 0.8 0.4 A3 3.0 0.5 0.6 A4 3.0 0.4 1.0

but this arrangement, applied in a multi-layering procedure,
turned out to be a highly technique sensitive procedure. Con-
sequently, there came a call for a “single” composite system
able to fulfil both resistance and esthetic requirements, usable
in an easy and reproducible method [4]. This demand led
recently to the formulation and production of a generation of
resin-based composite systems named “micro-hybrids”. This
family of composites is claimed to be able to combine high pol-
ishability, a natural looking aspect, color depth of traditional
microfill composites with strength, wear resistance and the
sculptability of traditional hybrid systems. Yet, for achieving
natural looking esthetics, also for the latter family of com-
posites, a combined application of different members is still
necessary.

Table 2 – Value measured for layering with T2 shade (Translucent 2—A1, A2, A3, A4 base)
T Base !E !E Base !E !E Base !E !E Base !E !E

T2 0.5 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5

T2 0.5 A1 1.0 1.8 1.8 A2 1.0 1.2 1.2 A3 1.0 1.5 1.5 A4 1.0 0.6 0.6
T2 0.5 A1 1.5 0.9 2.3 A2 1.5 0.8 2.0 A3 1.5 0.8 1.9 A4 1.5 0.6 1.1
T2 0.5 A1 2.0 0.5 2.4 A2 2.0 0.1 1.8 A3 2.0 0.7 1.5 A4 2.0 0.5 1.0
T2 0.5 A1 2.5 0.3 2.6 A2 2.5 0.9 1.8 A3 2.5 2.8 2.7 A4 2.5 0.4 0.8
T2 0.5 A1 3.0 1.0 3.4 A2 3.0 0.5 1.8 A3 3.0 1.2 2.6 A4 3.0 0.5 1.0
T2 1.0 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5
T2 1.0 A1 1.0 1.1 1.1 A2 1.0 0.7 0.7 A3 1.0 0.5 0.5 A4 1.0 0.2 0.2
T2 1.0 A1 1.5 0.8 1.2 A2 1.5 0.6 1.2 A3 1.5 0.3 0.5 A4 1.5 0.1 0.3
T2 1.0 A1 2.0 0.3 1.4 A2 2.0 0.1 1.1 A3 2.0 0.7 0.8 A4 2.0 0.6 0.9
T2 1.0 A1 2.5 0.4 1.6 A2 2.5 0.8 1.3 A3 2.5 0.6 0.9 A4 2.5 0.2 0.8
T2 1.0 A1 3.0 0.5 1.6 A2 3.0 0.7 1.3 A3 3.0 0.1 0.9 A4 3.0 0.6 1.0
T2 1.5 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5
T2 1.5 A1 1.0 0.9 0.9 A2 1.0 0.6 0.6 A3 1.0 1.2 1.2 A4 1.0 1.4 1.4
T2 1.5 A1 1.5 0.4 1.2 A2 1.5 0.4 0.6 A3 1.5 0.5 0.8 A4 1.5 0.7 1.0
T2 1.5 A1 2.0 0.1 1.2 A2 2.0 0.2 0.5 A3 2.0 0.4 1.2 A4 2.0 0.7 0.4
T2 1.5 A1 2.5 0.5 1.7 A2 2.5 0.1 0.6 A3 2.5 0.3 1.0 A4 2.5 0.6 0.9
T2 1.5 A1 3.0 0.6 1.2 A2 3.0 1.6 1.4 A3 3.0 0.4 0.7 A4 3.0 0.1 0.9
T2 2.0 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5
T2 2.0 A1 1.0 1.3 1.3 A2 1.0 0.8 0.8 A3 1.0 0.8 0.8 A4 1.0 0.4 0.4
T2 2.0 A1 1.5 0.5 1.8 A2 1.5 0.6 0.8 A3 1.5 0.2 0.6 A4 1.5 0.5 0.3
T2 2.0 A1 2.0 1.3 0.8 A2 2.0 2.0 1.9 A3 2.0 0.1 0.6 A4 2.0 0.6 0.6
T2 2.0 A1 2.5 0.5 1.1 A2 2.5 1.6 0.8 A3 2.5 0.4 1.0 A4 2.5 0.7 0.4
T2 2.0 A1 3.0 0.2 1.3 A2 3.0 1.0 1.5 A3 3.0 0.4 0.5 A4 3.0 0.5 0.8
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1584–1589 1587

Table 3 – Value measured for layering with T3 shade (Translucent 3—A1, A2, A3, A4 base)
T Base !E !E Base !E !E Base !E !E Base !E !E

T3 0.5 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5

T3 0.5 A1 1.0 2.0 2.0 A2 1.0 1.4 1.4 A3 1.0 1.5 1.5 A4 1.0 0.9 0.9
T3 0.5 A1 1.5 0.7 2.4 A2 1.5 1.3 2.7 A3 1.5 0.4 1.7 A4 1.5 1.4 1.6
T3 0.5 A1 2.0 0.6 2.8 A2 2.0 0.3 2.9 A3 2.0 0.8 1.9 A4 2.0 0.6 1.4
T3 0.5 A1 2.5 0.9 3.6 A2 2.5 0.3 2.8 A3 2.5 0.5 1.7 A4 2.5 0.4 1.1
T3 0.5 A1 3.0 0.1 3.6 A2 3.0 0.7 2.6 A3 3.0 0.5 2.2 A4 3.0 0.3 1..2
T3 1.0 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5
T3 1.0 A1 1.0 1.2 1.2 A2 1.0 1.2 1.2 A3 1.0 1.1 1.1 A4 1.0 0.7 0.7
T3 1.0 A1 1.5 1.1 1.5 A2 1.5 0.5 1.4 A3 1.5 0.4 0.9 A4 1.5 0.8 1.4
T3 1.0 A1 2.0 0.9 1.6 A2 2.0 0.9 2.0 A3 2.0 1.2 1.6 A4 2.0 0.5 1.2
T3 1.0 A1 2.5 0.7 2.2 A2 2.5 1.4 1.2 A3 2.5 0.9 0.9 A4 2.5 0.1 1.3
T3 1.0 A1 3.0 0.6 1.7 A2 3.0 0.3 1.5 A3 3.0 0.4 1.2 A4 3.0 0.7 1.9
T3 1.5 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5
T3 1.5 A1 1.0 1.0 1.0 A2 1.0 0.6 0.6 A3 1.0 0.4 0.4 A4 1.0 1.2 1.2
T3 1.5 A1 1.5 0.3 1.2 A2 1.5 0.6 0.8 A3 1.5 0.5 0.8 A4 1.5 1.2 0.7
T3 1.5 A1 2.0 0.2 1.4 A2 2.0 0.4 0.9 A3 2.0 0.2 0.6 A4 2.0 0.8 0.7
T3 1.5 A1 2.5 0.3 1.7 A2 2.5 0.9 0.8 A3 2.5 0.5 0.9 A4 2.5 0.9 0.4
T3 1.5 A1 3.0 0.9 1.3 A2 3.0 0.5 1.0 A3 3.0 0.4 1.0 A4 3.0 0.4 0.4
T3 2.0 A1 0.5 A2 0.5 A3 0.5 A4 0.5
T3 2.0 A1 1.0 1.1 1.1 A2 1.0 0.4 0.4 A3 1.0 0.7 0.7 A4 1.0 0.3 0.3
T3 2.0 A1 1.5 0.8 0.8 A2 1.5 0.4 0.6 A3 1.5 0.1 0.7 A4 1.5 0.2 0.5
T3 2.0 A1 2.0 0.5 1.0 A2 2.0 0.2 0.7 A3 2.0 0.3 0.9 A4 2.0 0.4 0.7
T3 2.0 A1 2.5 0.1 1.2 A2 2.5 0.7 1.0 A3 2.5 0.6 1.4 A4 2.5 0.4 0.8
T3 2.0 A1 3.0 0.7 1.7 A2 3.0 1.0 0.6 A3 3.0 0.4 1.7 A4 3.0 0.7 1.4

Besides the availability of products, proper understand-
ing of the concept of color and the way it is observed is
mandatory. Both in anterior and posterior areas, clinicians
should be able not only to replicate the physical properties
as well as the optical properties of dentin and enamel, but
to mimic the ideal behavior and aspect [5]. To get optimal
esthetic results, serious knowledge of the structure of nat-
ural dentition and tooth morphology is essential. The color
of a tooth can be identified on the basis of its appearance,
by hue, saturation and brightness. As a general rule, dentin
is very rich in hue and chroma and fluorescent; it is cov-
ered by enamel which is transparent, translucent and shows
some degree of opalescence [6–8]. For imitation of these
widely different characteristics of the two tissues, the use of a
multi-layering technique is recommended. Only small restora-
tions might be properly restored with only one single-layer
technique.
Moreover, the predictability of the technique used to repro-
duce color harmony between restorative materials and natural
dentition requires attention. In an attempt to create indis-
tinguishable restorations, clinicians should be challenged to
understand the relationship between hue, saturation and
brightness in natural dentition [9,10]. Translucency adds a
fourth dimension that renders the natural dentition really
complex from an optical behavior viewpoint; translucency,
by definition the property of a material by which a major
portion of the transmitted light undergoes scattering [13],
is an important element as it allows light to scatter within
an object and create color depth. This property is critical in
the so called chameleon effect of dental materials, in which
the color of one single tooth restoration is affected by the
color of the neighboring teeth, the surrounding tooth and/or
restorations [11,12]. The diverse orientations of the enamel
prisms reflect and scatter light at various angles, and these
result in appreciable differences in color perception. This is
particularly true for anterior teeth, not only for the higher
esthetic demands, but also because in the front teeth, light
is more abundant, in contrast with the oral cavity that acts
like a sort of “black hole”. An esthetic dental restorative mate-
rial will only be successful if these optical behaviors are
imitated. Therefore, a layering technique that provides the
combination of different opacities and chromas is indicated
[5,12].
In the resin system selected for this study, three differ-
ent formulations are available, each with several shades. The
three formulations differ from an optical point of view because
of a dissimilar degree of opacity and therefore also of translu-
cency.
For the present laboratory study, the layering technique
was simplified by investigating two parallel composite layers
piled up into a geometrically well-defined sample of a base
opacity and a translucent shade material [17]. From these
results it can be concluded that the thickness of each layer
plays a significant role in the color.
For example, keeping the thickness of the whole sample as
well as the shade of the translucent material fixed, thickness
alteration of the base material could lead to !E differences up
to 5.1. The influence of the base shade layer thickness is more
dominant than that of the translucent layer. Also the thick-
ness of the translucent layer was shown to influence the final
aspect, even if the effects on the final color were less evident
than that obtained by thickness variation in the base material.
The three translucent shades acted to varying degrees. Varia-
tion in thickness from 0.5 to 2.0 mm for the T1 material was not
enough to produce a clinically appreciable effect (Table 4). This
confirms the indication that it is a neutral shade, the use of
which provides for a more natural layering in terms of opacity,
without affecting the color.
1588 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1584–1589

Table 4 – Effect of the increase of T1 shade thickness

T Base L* a* B* !E !E

T1 0.5 A2 2.0 72.03 −1.49 4.07

T1 1.0 A2 2.0 71.07 −1.62 2.96 1.5 1.5
T1 1.5 A2 2.0 69.94 −2.40 4.47 2.0 2.0
T1 2.0 A2 2.0 68.97 −2.46 4.43 1.0 1.0

Table 5 – Effect of the increase of T2 shade thickness

T Base L* a* B* !E !E

T2 0.5 A2 2.0 70.22 −4.59 19.06

T2 1.0 A2 2.0 69.00 −5.31 22.94 4.1 4.1
T2 1.5 A2 2.0 68.36 −5.28 24.55 1.7 5.8
T2 2.0 A2 2.0 66.88 −4.48 22.90 2.4 5.1

Table 6 – Effect of the increase of T3 shade thickness

T Base L* a* b* !E !E

T3 0.5 A2 2.0 69.88 −3.38 9.35

T3 1.0 A2 2.0 68.44 −5.17 10.07 2.4 2.4
T3 1.5 A2 2.0 67.25 −5.19 10.13 1.2 3.3
T3 2.0 A2 2.0 66.10 −5.43 10.30 1.2 4.4

Table 7 – Delta E variations between different T shade with constant thickness

T Base L* a* b* !E

T1 0.5 A2 2.0 72.03 −1.49 4.07

T2 0.5 A2 2.0 70.22 −4.59 19.06 15.4

T2 0.5 A2 2.0 70.22 −4.59 19.06

T3 0.5 A2 2.0 69.88 −3.38 9.35 9.8

T1 0.5 A2 2.0 72.03 −1.49 4.07

T3 0.5 A2 2.0 69.88 −3.38 9.35 6.0

Shade T2 showed to be more effective, particularly in the references

b* value. Increase in thickness of material T2 definitely influ-
ences !E (Table 5) to a clinically appreciable level.
Shade T3 showed an optical behavior similar to T1, scarcely
influencing !E. However, it is noteworthy that the differences
occurred almost exclusively in the !L* value, which means
that the clinician is able to specifically control the impor-
tant parameter Value, the lightness or darkness of the color
(Table 6). This possibility of making a controlled change or
modifying the ratio between T1 and T3 shades, offers a useful
solution in the multi-layering technique. From Table 7 it can
be concluded that with the use of the Point4 composite sys-
tem, an acceptable color match can be obtained and with the
additional translucent shades, clinically noticeable esthetic
corrections can be made. Whether this satisfying esthetic
matching is durable, still has to be investigated in long-term
laboratory studies and clinical monitoring.
As is the case with another important aspects of compos-
ite technology in dentistry, that is bonding, color matching
requires not only good materials and understanding but also
great skill of the practitioner.
[1] Clarke FJJ. Measurement of the color of the human teeth. In:
Dental ceramics: proceedings of the first international
symposium on ceramics. Quintessence Pub Co. Inc.; 1983. p.
441–89.
[2] Vichi A, Ferrari M, Davidson CL. Color and opacity variations
in three different resin-based composite products after
water aging. Dent Mater 2004;20:530–4.
[3] Fahl N. Predictable aesthetic reconstruction of fractured
anterior teeth with composite resins. Pract Periodont
Aesthet Dent 1996;8:17–31.
[4] Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of
nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent
Assoc 2003;134:1382–90.
[5] Dietschi D. Free-hand composite resin restoration: a key to
anterior aesthetics. Pract Periodont Aesthet Dent
1995;7:15–25.
[6] Ubassy G. Shape and color: the key to successful ceramic
restorations. Quintessence Pub Co.; 1993.
[7] Muia P. Four dimensional color system. Quintessence Pub
Co.; 1993.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 1584–1589
[8] Duarte S, Perdigao J, Lopes M. Composite resin restorations.
Natural aesthetic and dynamic of light. Pract Proced Aesthet
Dent 2003;15:657–64.
[9] Fahl N, Swift E. The invisible class IV restoration. J Esthet
Dent 1989;1:111–3.
[10] Rufenacht CR. Fundamentals of esthetics. Quintessence Pub
Co.; 1990.
[11] Sieber C. Voyage: vision in color and form. Quintessence Pub
Co.; 1994.
[12] Magne P, Holz J. Stratification of composite restorations.
Systematic and durable replication of natural aesthetic.
Pract Periodont Aesthet Dent 1996;8:61–8.
[13] Hunter RS, Harold WH. The measurement of appearance.
New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. p. 410.
1589
[14] Inokoshi S, Burrow MF, Kataumi M, Yamada T, Takatsu T.
Opacity and color changes of tooth-colored restorative
materials. Oper Dent 1996:73–80.
[15] Kim HS, Um CM. Color differences between resin
composites and shade guides. Quintessence Int 1996;27:
559–67.
[16] Um CM, Ruyter IE. Staining of resin-based veneering
materials with coffee and tea. Quintessence Int
1991;22:377–86.
[17] Dietschi D, Ardu S, Krejci I. A new shading concept based on
natural tooth color applied to direct composite restorations.
Quintessence Int 2006;37:91–102.