Research Article

In vitro comparison of color stability of restorative

materials against children’s beverages
Janhvi Manohar, Ganesh Jeevanandan*

ABSTRACT

Background: Composite restorations must not only provide an initial shade match but also must maintain its esthetic
appearance over a long period of time. The major disadvantage with the use of composite resins is its color instability. Color
alteration is due to oral hygiene habits, diet, etc., of an individual. The consumption of coffee and soft drinks, for example, has
a high prevalence in the contemporary society, especially in industrialized countries. This study aimed at assessing this color
alteration when immersed in chocolate milk, cola, and packed juice - children’s beverages. Materials and Methods: The
color and color difference of Dentsply Ceram, 3M Composite, and GC SolareSculpt after immersion in different staining
solutions, i.e., (1) chocolate milk and artificial saliva, (2) cola and artificial saliva, and (3) packed juice and artificial saliva
were measured using reflectance spectrophotometer with CIELAB system before immersion and after immersion at day 1 and
day 10. Results: Dentsply ceram showed acceptable color change, i.e., ΔE <3.7 with all three solutions and artificial saliva
over the span of 10 days. The other two restorative materials assessed exhibited an acceptable color change in the Group 1
(orange juice and artificial saliva) and Group 2 (Bournvita milk and artificial saliva) solutions but ΔE >3.7 in Group 3 (Pepsi
and artificial saliva). Conclusion: Pepsi had the most staining ability among the three solutions, and Dentsply Ceram proved
to be the most color stable with its ΔE <3.7.

KEY WORDS: Chocolate milk, CIELAB, Cola, Color stability, Composite resin, Discoloration, Juice

INTRODUCTION materials usually occurs due to surface alterations

There has been a growing interest among dentists
and dental hygienists for composite resins and other
esthetic restorative materials and its role in the
treatment of damaged and carious teeth. Composite
resins are the most widely accepted restorative
materials due to their color match, anticariogenic
ability, and excellent refined properties. The success
of restorative materials is based on the foundation of
efficient outcomes and esthetic results. The continuous
advancement of restorative materials and practices has
made possible the attainment of the finest esthetics.[1]
The major disadvantage with the use of composite
resins is its color instability. Dentists are routinely
questioned by patients about how long an aesthetic
restoration should last and if their eating habits may
influence the quality and longevity of the restoration.
Color change or discoloration of the restorative
and penetration of the staining agents (through
adsorption). Extrinsic staining occurs due to habits
such as smoking or tobacco chewing or due to plaque
or calculus accumulation. Intrinsic discolorations
are promoted by chemical reactions that may take
place within the restoration.[2] The consumption
of coffee and soft drinks, for example, has a high
prevalence in the contemporary society, especially in
industrialized countries. It has been demonstrated that
surface discolorations in composite resins are related
to hygiene, eating habits, and smoking.[2] Among
children, unusual eating, drinking, and swallowing
habits, for example, holding an acid beverage in the
mouth before swallowing increase the contact time of
an acidic substance with the teeth and thus increase
the risk of discoloration.[3] The failure of composite
resins usually is due to discoloration of the anterior
restorations.

Access this article online Discoloration may be due to a number of parameters

Website: jprsolutions.info ISSN: 0975-7619
including stain accumulation and surface roughness
as extrinsic factors as well as water sorption,

Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and
Technical Sciences, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

*Corresponding author: Dr. Ganesh Jeevanandan, Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College
and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai – 600 077, Tamil Nadu, India. +91‑9884283869.
E-mail: helloganz@gmail.com

Received on: 16-03-2018; Revised on: 23-04-2018; Accepted on: 26-05-2018

1520 Drug Invention Today | Vol 10 • Issue 8 • 2018

 Janhvi Manohar and Ganesh Jeevanandan
dissolution of ingredients, and degradation of
material components as intrinsic factors.[4,5] As an
effective approach to restoring the initial color of
discolored teeth or restorative materials, the use of
bleaching agents such as hydrogen peroxide and
carbamide peroxide has been proposed.[6-9] However,
the bleaching agents may not exhibit similar impacts
on different restorative materials. For instance, a
10% carbamide peroxide successfully bleaches
dental composites and hybrid ionomer, whereas this
solution is not effective in removing the stains from
compomer.[10] The ideal composite resin formulations
that may permit an optimal esthetic outcome without
compromising the mechanical properties essential for
a suitable functional outcome are nevertheless under
exploration. It is imperative that an ideal anterior
restorative material should exhibit adequate esthetics
as a function of color stability in addition to other
properties such as strength, biocompatibility, and time
aid in the prevention of secondary caries formation.[11]
Esthetic restorations in children are more prone to
discoloration as they consume beverages on a regular
basis. The aim of this study was to compare the color
stability of three most commonly used provisional
restorative materials in clinical practice after
immersing them in beverages.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three direct composite resins such as Dentsply
Ceram, 3M Composite, and GC SolareSculpt were
used in the present study. Four specimens of each
composite were fabricated using a stainless-steel
matrix. Each material was inserted into the matrix
in 1.0-mm-thick increments and light-cured. These
specimens were immersed in the following beverages
and artificial saliva acts as a control. A  reflectance
spectrophotometer that employs CIELAB color
system was used in this study.
The staining solutions were prepared in the following
concentrations:
• Pepsi (PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt., Ltd.,
Nelamangala, India) was used as such.
• Chocolate milk and Bournvita milk (Kraft Foods,
Cadbury India).
• The Bournvita milk was prepared using 15  g of
Bournvita poured into 500 mL of unsweetened hot
milk and filtered after 10 min.
• Orange juice and pulpy orange (PepsiCo India
Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Nelamangala, India).
Artificial Saliva
The artificial saliva was prepared in the laboratory
from 0.4 g sodium chloride (NaCl), 1.21 g potassium
chloride (KCl), 0.78 g sodium dihydrogen phosphate
dehydrate (NaH2PO4.2H2O), 0.005  g hydrated
Drug Invention Today | Vol 10 • Issue 8 • 2018
sodium sulfide (Na2S.9H2O), 1  g urea CO (NH2)2,
and 1000  ml of water. 10 N sodium hydroxide was
added to this mixture until the pH value was measured
to be as 6.75 ± 0.15.[12]
Specimens were divided into three groups,
• Group I - orange juice (500 ml) and artificial saliva
(500 ml)
• Group II - Bournvita milk (500 ml) and artificial
saliva (500 ml)
• Group  III -  Pepsi (500  ml) and artificial saliva
(500 ml).
The specimens were immersed in the beverages
for 30  min and for the rest of the day in artificial
saliva. Color was measured in a spectrophotometer
according to CIELAB system at T1 and T10 (1st day
and 10th day). The CIELAB system is based on three
parameters such as L*, a*, and b* for defining color.
The specimens were rinsed with distilled water for
5 min and blotted dry with tissue paper before color
measurement.
Specimens were immersed in their respective group
of solutions at room temperature, and artificial saliva
was used to mimic oral conditions. Color differences
of each specimen were measured by reflectance
spectrophotometer. L*, a*, and b* values of each
specimen after immersion at each specified time
interval (T1 and T10) were measured by placing each
specimen on the measuring head and covering with
the black cover. The mean values of ΔL*, Δa*, and
Δb* after three measurements were automatically
calculated by the spectrophotometer and recorded.
Color difference ΔE was calculated from the mean
ΔL*, Δa*, and Δb* values for each specimen with the
formula:
ΔE = (ΔL*2+Δa*2+Δb*2)1/2
Where ΔL*, Δa*, and Δb* are the differences in L*,
a*, and b* values before (T0) and after immersion at
each time interval (T1 and T10).
RESULTS
The color difference, ΔE, of each restorative material
used for each group is illustrated as bar graphs in
Figures 1-3. Dentsply Ceram restorative material was
found to be the most color stable followed by 3M
composite and GC SolareSculpt when collectively
compared to its color difference followed by
immersion in the three solutions and artificial saliva.
Dentsply Ceram showed acceptable color change,
i.e., ΔE <3.7 with all three solutions and artificial saliva
over the span of 10  days. The other two restorative
materials assessed exhibited an acceptable color change
in the Group 1 (orange juice and artificial saliva) and
1521
 Janhvi Manohar and Ganesh Jeevanandan
Figure 1: Color change following immersion in Pepsi
Figure 2: Color change following immersion in Bournvita
milk
Figure 3: Color change following the immersion in orange
juice
Group 2 (Bournvita milk and artificial saliva) solutions
but a significant color change (ΔE >3.7) in Group  3
(Pepsi and artificial saliva).
GC SolareSculpt showed the maximum color change
in all three staining solutions.
The solution with the maximum staining capability
was Group 3 (Pepsi and artificial saliva), followed by
Group  1 (orange juice and artificial saliva) and then
Group 2 (Bournvita milk and artificial saliva) at both
time intervals, i.e.,  the ΔE of Pepsi was the highest
followed by orange juice and Bournvita milk.
DISCUSSION
Composite resins have an increasing importance in
the industry of dentistry due to its strength and its
shade matching the color of the tooth, thus being the
number one choice for patients undergoing restorative
treatment. However, the only main disadvantage of
composite restorative materials is its color instability.
1522
Color and shade are the essential characters of esthetic
restorative materials. Filler composition, minor
pigment addition, filler coupling agents, matrix,
initiation components, and filler content are the factors
affecting the color of esthetic restorative materials.[13]
Color stability of esthetic restorative materials when
exposed to various staining media has been of interest
to many researchers.[14] McKinney and Wu have stated
that, due to the difference in the filler material and
the resin component in various composite restorative
materials, they act differently with certain stains.
This, by itself, may also be related to the chemical
composition of the stain.[15]
The present study was carried out to evaluate the
effects of beverages that are consumed on a daily basis
by children, orange juice, chocolate milk (in this case,
Bournvita), and Pepsi on three restorative materials.
Due to excellent marketing and advertisements,
consumption of cola drinks by young individuals have
increased in the recent years followed by orange juice
and Bournvita milk which seems to be a pre-requisite
for good energy and health at every household.
A  10  days’ period was chosen as most part of the
staining occurs after 1 week of placing the restorative
followed by which stabilization of the discoloration
occurs as reported by Johnston and Kao.[16]
The staining of restorative materials can be caused
by extrinsic factors or intrinsic factors. Asmussen,
all specified that this color change in restorative
materials is due to a number of factors such as the
formation of degraded products, changes in surface
morphology, aging, and extrinsic staining.[17] There is
an increasing need for restoring the teeth to its original
color. Carbamide peroxide, and hydrogen peroxide are
being used for bleaching the restored natural teeth to
enhance esthetics.[6] However, these bleaching agents
exhibit different reactions on various restorative
materials. For example, 10% carbamide peroxide
may not be operative in removing discoloration on
compomer, whereas it is instrumental in removing
stains from dental composite and hybrid ionomer
restorative materials.[10] This discoloration can be
assessed by either visual methods or instruments.
Visualizing the discoloration with the naked eye is not
very efficient as the minute color changes that occur
every other day may not be apparent when compared to
instrumental techniques such as spectrophotometers,
colorimeter, etc., which could possibly eliminate
the individual aspects of color assessment.[18]
However, spectrophotometers are a better choice than
colorimeters as they contain monochromators and
photodiodes that measure the reflectance curve of a
product color every 10 nm or less.[19]
In evaluating color differences, generally, two systems
are used: The standard commission Internationale
Drug Invention Today | Vol 10 • Issue 8 • 2018
 Janhvi Manohar and Ganesh Jeevanandan
de L, Eclairage (CIELAB) Color System, and the
Munsell color system.[20] The American Dental
Association recommends the usage of the CIELAB
color differential system in assessing the minute
shade differences.[21] This CIELAB color system is
useful in providing information about the position of
the object in a uniform three-dimensional (3D) color
space. It uses three parameters, L*, a*, and b* which
are the color coordinate values in a 3D color space. L*
indicates brightness or lightness (value), and a* and b*
aid as numeric correlates both for hue and chroma. The
a* represents the color position on a red/green axis,
whereas b* values represent the position on a yellow/
blue axis. The magnitude of the color difference (delta
E) professed between two objects is the difference in
color or shade between day 1 (T1) and day 10 (T10).
The higher the delta E, the greater is the difference
between the two samples being compared, thus lesser
is its color stability.[10] Different studies have shown
various thresholds of shade difference values above
which the color change is perceptible to the human eye.
Values of ΔE between 0 and 2 seemed imperceptible,
2–3 -  just perceptible, 3–8 -  moderately perceptible,
and values above 8 - markedly perceptible.[22] Usually,
a ΔE <3.7 is viewed as clinically acceptable.[16]
Considering the above-mentioned aspects, Pepsi had
the highest discoloring ability and GC SolareSculpt
was the restorative material among the three most
prone to discoloration. Pepsi is widely consumed and
contains sulfite ammonia caramel which is the staining
agent.[23] Bournvita milk had the least staining ability
mainly due to its basic nature.[11] Orange juice leads
second as its acidic nature is less when compared to
the pH of 3 of Pepsi. These three groups of solutions
were chosen so as to represent the varied colors of
a spectrum. However, Mundim et al., in his study,
conducted about the effect of staining solutions and
repolishing on the color stability of composites that
cola, despite containing excess amounts of phosphoric
acid as the presence of phosphate ions in cola, may
suppress the dissolution of calcium phosphate from
the tooth.[24]
Dentsply Ceram was the most resistant among the
three restorative materials used following immersion
in all three groups of solutions. This indicates a good
stability between matrix and resin of the composite.
Extensively cross-linked resins show decreased
water absorption. GC SolareSculpt is the least color
resistant. This is due to its increased resin content and
high porosity of these restorative materials.[25] Thus,
there is an increase in water sorption in the case of GC
SolareSculpt.
In other studies, adult beverages such as coffee,
tea, and wine were used, and wine and coffee were
the solutions which were capable of maximum
Drug Invention Today | Vol 10 • Issue 8 • 2018
discoloration of the restorative materials. Our results
regarding the staining solution correlated with the
study done by Hotwani et al.[11]
Staining capacity of restorative materials usually
depends on the hydrophilicity of the matrix resin, its
filler particles, and its degree of water absorption, that
is, if the resin matrix is capable of water absorption,
it has the ability to absorb other liquids too.[26] Filler
particles cannot absorb the liquid into the bulk of the
restorative material; however, it can absorb liquids
onto its surface and the number of filler particles
has increased in recent times due to its qualitative
characteristics. However, this largely depends on the
fluidity of the beverage too, if it is watery or thick in
consistency. It is essential that the composite resin
material presents with a uniform structure and even
distribution of filler particles in the polymer matrix
and thus decreases the areas of filler-rich and filler-
less within the restorative materials. This is important
in the case of performance of composite restorative
materials in aqueous surroundings as any voids or
spaces at the interface of the filler particles and matrix
may cause water sorption within these composites as
stated by Skrtic et al.[27] Composite resin materials
that are capable of absorbing water can also absorb
other solutions containing pigments, as already
stated, which results in discoloration of the restorative
materials. Water essentially behaves as a vehicle or
medium for the discoloration to occur by causing stain
penetration into the resin matrix.[28] Water absorption
occurs as a result of direct absorption in the matrix.
Thus, higher the amount of resin matrix in the
composite, greater is the amount of penetration of the
stain onto the surface weaker bond among the resin
matrix and filler particles. Sorption of water further
reduces the durability of the resin by plasticizing and
expanding the organic matrix and hydrolyzing the
silane.[26] However, further studies are required to look
into other factors such as surface roughness, patient
habits, and polishability.
CONCLUSION
Under the tested experimental conditions, the
following conclusions were drawn:
• Pepsi had the most staining ability which is due to
its high pH.
• Light-cured Dentsply Ceram was the most color
resistant, with its ΔE always <3.7, which is clinically
acceptable and thus can be the restorative material
of choice among the other three materials used in
this study.
REFERENCES
1. Sikri VK. Color: Implications in dentistry. J  Conserv Dent
2010;13:249-55.
1523
 Janhvi Manohar and Ganesh Jeevanandan
2. Asmussen E, Hansen EK. Surface discoloration of restorative
resins in relation to surface softening and oral hygiene. Scand J
Dent Res 1986;94:174-7.
3. Padmaharish V, Abilasha R. Prevalence of tooth wear in
children and adolescents-a survey based research. J Pharm Sci
Res 2016;8:1058-64.
4. Abu-Bakr N, Han L, Okamoto A, Iwaku M. Color stability of
compomer after immersion in various media. J  Esthet Dent
2000;12:258-63.
5. Barutcigil Ç, Yıldız M. Intrinsic and extrinsic discoloration
of dimethacrylate and silorane based composites. J  Dent
2012;40 Suppl 1:e57-63.
6. Cooley RL, Burger KM. Effect of carbamide peroxide on
composite resins. Quintessence Int 1991;22:817-21.
7. Schemehorn B, González-Cabezas C, Joiner A. A  SEM
evaluation of a 6% hydrogen peroxide tooth whitening gel on
dental materials in vitro. J Dent 2004;32 Supplement:35-9.
8. Polydorou O, Hellwig E, Auschill TM. The effect of different
bleaching agents on the surface texture of restorative materials.
Oper Dent 2006;31:473-80.
9. Caballero AB, Navarro LF, Lorenzo JA. At-home vital
bleaching: Comparison of hydrogen peroxide and carbamide
peroxide treatments. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal
2006;11:E94-9.
10. Fay RM, Servos T, Powers JM. Color of restorative materials
after staining and bleaching. Oper Dent 1999;24:292-6.
11. Hotwani K, Thosar N, Baliga S. Comparative in vitro assessment
of color stability of hybrid esthetic restorative materials against
various children’s beverages. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:70-4.
12. Oncag G, Tuncer AV, Tosun YS. Acidic soft drinks effects on
the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets and a scanning
electron microscopy evaluation of the enamel. Angle Orthod
2005;75:247-53.
13. Sarkis E. Color change of some aesthetic dental materials:
Effect of immersion solutions and finishing of their surfaces.
Saudi Dent J 2012;24:85-9.
14. Bindal P, Bindal U, Dabbagh A, Ramanathan A, Ginjupalli K.
Comparative effects of turmeric, coffee and chewable tobacco
on the color stability of tooth-colored restorative materials. Br
Dent J 2015;219:570.
15. McKinney JE, Wu W. Chemical softening and wear of dental
composites. J Dent Res 1985;64:1326-31.
16. Johnston WM, Kao EC. Assessment of appearance match
1524
by visual observation and clinical colorimetry. J  Dent Res
1989;68:819-22.
17. Asmussen E. Factors affecting the color stability of restorative
resins. Acta Odontol Scand 1983;41:11-8.
18. Seghi RR, Hewlett ER, Kim J. Visual and instrumental
colorimetric assessments of small color differences on
translucent dental porcelain. J Dent Res 1989;68:1760-4.
19. Rao YM, Srilakshmi V, Vinayagam KK, Narayanan LL. An
evaluation of the color stability of tooth-colored restorative
materials after bleaching using CIELAB color technique.
Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:60-4.
20. Brewer JD, Wee A, Seghi R. Advances in color matching. Dent
Clin North Am 2004;48:v, 341-58.
21. Revised American Dental Association Specification no 12 for
Denture Base Polymers. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;90:451-8.
22. Guler AU, Kurt S, Kulunk T. Effects of various finishing
procedures on the staining of provisional restorative materials.
J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:453-8.
23. Manojlovic D, Lenhardt L, Milićević B, Antonov M, Miletic V,
Dramićanin MD, et al. Evaluation of staining-dependent colour
changes in resin composites using principal component
analysis. Sci Rep 2015;5:14638.
24. Mundim FM, Garcia Lda F, Pires-de-Souza Fde C. Effect of
staining solutions and repolishing on color stability of direct
composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:249-54.
25. Arima T, Murata H, Hamada T. The effects of cross-linking
agents on the water sorption and solubility characteristics of
denture base resin. J Oral Rehabil 1996;23:476-80.
26. 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;33:389-98.
27. Skrtic D, Antonucci JM, McDonough WG, Liu DW. Effect
of chemical structure and composition of the resin phase on
mechanical strength and vinyl conversion of amorphous
calcium phosphate-based composites. J  Biomed Mater Res A
2004;68:763-72.
28. Satou N, Khan AM, Matsumae I, Satou J, Shintani H.
In vitro color change of composite-based resins. Dent Mater
1989;5:384-7.
Source of support: Nil; Conflict of interest: None Declared
Drug Invention Today | Vol 10 • Issue 8 • 2018