Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

ISSN: 0169-4243 (Print) 1568-5616 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tast20

Comparison of the translucency of two

multishaded composite resins polymerized with
direct or indirect method

Pinar Gul, Verda Turel, Nilgun Akgul & Mutlu Ozcan

To cite this article: Pinar Gul, Verda Turel, Nilgun Akgul & Mutlu Ozcan (2017): Comparison of
the translucency of two multishaded composite resins polymerized with direct or indirect method,
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2017.1408183

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2017.1408183

Published online: 26 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tast20

Download by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] Date: 27 November 2017, At: 06:12
 Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2017.1408183

Comparison of the translucency of two multishaded

composite resins polymerized with direct or indirect method
Pinar Gula, Verda Turela  , Nilgun Akgula and Mutlu Ozcanb
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

a
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey; bDental
Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental
Materials Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of this study was to measure the translucency of one indirect Received 8 April 2017
and direct resin composite after polymerization and to examine the Revised 13 November 2017
effect of color parameters on this property. Tescera and Filtek Ultimate, Accepted 15 November 2017
each containing three shade groups (Enamel, Dentin and Body for KEYWORDS
Filtek Ultimate; and Incisal, Opaceous Dentin and Body for Tescera), Color; composite
were investigated. The translucency parameter (TP) was measured resins; polymerization;
as the color difference between a specimen over a white and black spectrophotometry;
background. Significant differences were observed in TP values translucency
between shade groups. Tukey’s multiple comparison test revealed
TP values among the groups of Filtek Ultimate-Enamel  > Tescera-
Incisal  >  Filtek Ultimate-Body  >  Tescera-Body  =  Filtek Ultimate-
Dentin > Tescera-Opaceous Dentin. In conclusion, it is concluded that
the translucency of resin composite was affected by polymerization
and color parameters.

Introduction
Responding to esthetic, phonetic, and physiological requirements deriving from edentu-
lism represents a wide field in dentistry that has been the subject of numerous studies. In
line with advances in restorative materials, esthetic success has achieved equal importance
to mechanical success. Restorative materials, the range of which is increasing rapidly as
technology advances have a crucial role in meeting individual needs. The correct selection
of these materials is a precondition for success.
The effectively usage of restorative materials in terms of esthetic depends on properties
such as color, translucency, opacity, metamerism, and fluorescence and on factors includ-
ing surface roughness and the size of the restoration [1]. Translucency allows light to pass
through a substance, but disperses it, so objects are not visible through it. Tooth enamel
possesses inherent translucency. This means that esthetically successful dental restorations
must possess translucency properties comparable to those of human enamel [2]. The most
widely used esthetic restorative material is dental resin composite. Nano-filled composites
have recently been developed due to growing interest for a universal restorative material

CONTACT  Pinar Gul  opinargul@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2   P. GUL ET AL.

used for direct restorations of all kinds [3,4]. Nanocomposites contain increased filler load-
ing and decreased organic matrices, resulting in better mechanical, physical, and optical
characteristics [5,6].
Indirect resin composites have been proposed as an alternative for circumventing var-
ious difficulties inherent in dental porcelain. The abrasiveness of porcelain is destructive
to opposing natural teeth, and porcelain has relatively low fracture resistance [7]. Indirect
composites exhibit difference widely from direct composite systems in terms of monomer
ingredient and polymerization procedures. Direct composites are cured using light polym-
erization units, primarily quartz-tungsten-halogen light source or light-emitting diodes. In
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

contrast, indirect composite polymerization involves laboratory polymerization units [8].

Matching the shade of restorative materials to the present tooth structure is frequently
problematic because of the inherent translucency in human tooth enamel. The translucency
of esthetic restorative materials is therefore particularly important. Due to the increasing
interest in esthetic success, restorative materials must replicate the translucency of natural
teeth [9,10].
The null hypotheses of this study were that (1) there is no significant difference in trans-
lucency between these commercial resin composites after polymerization and (2) color
parameters do not affect translucency.
The aim of this study was to measure the translucency of one indirect and direct resin
composite after polymerization and to examine the effect of color parameters on this
property.

Materials and methods

A direct composite resin (Filtek Ultimate (FU), 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and an indi-
rect composite resin (Tescera (T), Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA) were used in this study.
Their compositions are presented in Table 1. Three groups of shades were created for each
of materials. The three FU groups were enamel (EN), dentin (D) and body (B), while those
in T were incisal (I), opaceous dentin (OD) and body (B).

Table 1. Details of the investigated restorative materials.

Group Manufac-
Material Group code Shade Composition turer
Filtek Ul- Enamel FU-EN AT, W, A1, A2, A3 78.5% Zirconia/silica zirconia, 3M ESPE, St.
timate Dentin FU-D A2, A3, B3 silica; BISGMA, BISEMA, Paul MN,
(FU) Body FU-B A2, A3, A3,5, B2 UDMA, TEGDMA, PEGDMA USA
Tescera Incisal T-I BLUE, CLEAR, FROST, GRAY, 81% glass frit and amorphous sil- Bisco, Inc.,
(T) NEUTRAL, SUPER TRANS- ica; 19% ethoxylated bisphenol Schaum-
PERENT, WHITE, PINK, A dimethacryalte and BISGMA burg, IL, USA
YELLOW
Opaceous T-OD A1, A2, A3, A3,5, A4, B1, B2, B3,
Dentin B4, C1, C2, C3, C4, D2, D3, D4
Body T-B A1, A2, A3, A3,5, A4, B1, B2,
B3, B4, C1, C2, C3, C4, D2,
D3, D4, BLEACH 1, BLEACH 2,
BLEACH 3
Note: BISGMA: Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate, BISEMA: Bisphenol A polyethylene glycol diether dimeth-
acrylate, UDMA: Diurethane dimethacrylate, TEGDMA: Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, PEGDMA: Polyethylene glycol
dimethacrylate, FU-EN: Filtek Ultimate-Enamel, FU-D: Filtek Ultimate-Dentin, FU-B: Filtek Ultimate-Body, T-I: Tescera- In-
cisal, T-OD: Tescera-Opaceous Dentin, T-B: Tescera-Body.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   3

Resin composite disks (8 × 2-mm) were prepared using stainless steel mold. All speci-
mens were prepared by compressing the materials between two glass plates to obtain the
desired thickness and smoothness. Ten samples were prepared for each shade in these
subgroups.
After polymerization using quartz tungsten halogen (with an 8-mm tip) (Hilux polym-
erization light, Benlioglu Inc., Ankara, Turkey) for 20 s each from above and below, the
strips and glass plates were removed. The power of the polymerization device (800 mW/
cm2) was checked with a radiometer (Hilux Ultra Plus Curing Units, Benlioglu Dental,
Ankara, Turkey). Translucency parameter (TP) values of composite samples were measured
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

before and after polymerization using a spectrophotometer (Spectro ShadeTM MICRO, MHT
Optic Research AG, Milan, Italy). Tescera specimens were also prepared using stainless
steel molds. Die separator (Tescera die separator, Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA) was used
to brush the specimens. Light polymerization was then applied using a polymerization
source for 10 s. The filled molds were then placed in a light cycle unit for 2 min (0.5 MPa
pressure-light) followed by a heat cycle in water (135 °C) with oxygen scavenger capsules
(Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA) for 16 min to achieve a pressure-, light-, and heat-driven cure.
Color was measured based on the CIELAB color scale compared to the standard illumi-
nant D65 over a white standard (CIE L* = 91.2, a* = −0.6 and b* = 1.4) and a black standard
(CIE L* = 14.9, a* = 1.3 and b* = 3.9) on a spectrophotometer (Spectro Shade™ MICRO,
MHT Optic Research AG, Milan, Italy). Three measurements were performed for each
specimen. TP values were calculated from the difference between the color of the specimen
over the white and black background using the formula
[( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ]1∕2
TP = LB − LW + aB − aW + bB − bW

where subscript B presents to the color parameters over the black background and subscript
W presents to those over the white background. In addition, chroma was measured using
the formula C*ab = (a*2 + b*2)1/2, where Cab* represents changes in chromatic coordinates
in the CIE L*a*b* color system.
Additionally, the morphology of the filler particles was examined using scanning electron
microscope equipped with a field emission gun (FEG-SEM; Quanta 450, FEI Company).
Following polymerization of the samples, the top surface of composite specimens were
grounded for 10 s using silicon carbide paper (1500, and 2500) to remove the oxygen-inhib-
ited layer. Then, the specimens were exposed to distilled water and dried under a vacuum.
Following air drying, the samples were examined using a scanning electron microscope
equipped with a field emission gun (SEM-FEG), at 5000× magnification.

Statistical analysis
SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) software was used in the statistical analysis
of data. Changes in the TP values and color parameters resulting from polymerization were
compared using a paired t test at a significance level of .05. One-way ANOVA at a signifi-
cance level of .05 was applied to the values after polymerization in the various material and
shade groups (six groups). Means were compared using Tukey’s multiple comparison test.
The six groups compared were FU-EN, FU-D, and FU-B in FU material and T-I, T-OD,
and T-B in T material.
 4   P. GUL ET AL.

We also determined the influence of differences in color parameters (CIE L*, a*, b* and
C*ab over white and black backgrounds) using multiple regression analysis; TP was set as
a dependent variable and L*, a*, b* and Cab* as independent variables (p < .05).

Results
TP values after polymerization ranged between 9.24 (FU-D group A2 color) and 37.48
(FU-EN group AT color), while TP values before polymerization in the direct group ranged
between 8.70 (FU-D group, A2 color) and 34.90 (FU-EN group AT color). In the indirect
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

group, TP values after polymerization ranged between 3.22 (T-OD group, C4 color) and
23.68 (T-I group, GRAY color), while TP values before polymerization ranged between 4.42
(T-OD group, C4 color) and 32.18 (T-I group, GRAY color).
The TP values for shade groups of both composite materials are shown in Table 2. The
paired t test revealed statistically significant differences for the FU-EN (t = −3.830; p = .001),
T-I (t = 14.423, p = .001), and T-B (t = 7.391; p = .001) groups before and after polymeriza-
tion. Tukey’s multiple comparison test showed that TP values in shade group combinations
for both composite materials after polymerization were FU-EN > T-I > FU-B > T-B = FU
-D > T-OD (p < .05).
L*, a*, b*, and Cab* values are shown in Figures 1–4. The paired t test showed that there
were statistically significant differences among color parameters before and after polym-
erization (p < .05). L* values decreased for FU composite material after polymerization,
despite increasing for T composite material in all shade groups. a* values increased for all
tested materials. b* and Cab* values decreased for both restorative materials except for the
T-I group.
Multiple regression analyses indicating a correlation between TP values and color param-
eters are shown in Table 3. TP values directly affected color parameters (p < .05).
Figure 5 presents the morphology of the shade groups of composite materials used in the
study. The images were taken by FEG-SEM and the distribution of particles is seen. Scanning
electron micrograph of T-I shows a homogenous distribution of filler particles (Figure 5(d)).
T-OD group shows scratch lines and some debonding of filler particles (Figure 5(e)) while

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of translucency parameter values and the paired t test results for
Filtek Ultimate and Tescera material of each shade group before and after polymerization.
Shade groups Polymerization Mean Standard deviation t p
FU-EN BP 21.20 7.07 −3.830 0.001a
AP 22.06 7.95
FU-D BP 9.41 0.73 −2.118 0.053
AP 9.80 0.65
FU-B BP 15.10 1.14 −1.933 0.068
AP 15.38 1.04
T-I BP 27.96 3.15 14.423 0.001a
AP 18.80 3.41
T-OD BP 5.79 1.10 1.418 0.160
AP 5.46 2.21
T-B BP 12.37 2.63 7.391 0.001a
AP 10.73 2.98
Note: BP: Before Polymerization, AP: After Polymerization, FU-EN: Filtek Ultimate-Enamel, FU-D: Filtek Ultimate-Dentin, FU-
B: Filtek Ultimate-Body, T-I: Tescera-Incisal, T-OD: Tescera-Opaceous Dentin, T-B: Tescera-Body.
a
Statistically significant.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   5
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

Figure 1. Commission International de l’Eclairage L* (lightness) values (ranging from black to white) over
white and black backgrounds for all shade groups of both composite resin. FU-EN: Filtek Ultimate-Enamel,
FU-D: Filtek Ultimate-Dentin, FU-B: Filtek Ultimate-Body, T-I: Tescera-Incisal, T-OD: Tescera-Opaceous
Dentin, T-B: Tescera-Body. W: White Background, B: Black Background.

Figure 2. Commission International de l’Eclairage a* (redness) values (ranging from negative values [green]
to positive values [red]) over white and black backgrounds for all shade groups of both composite resin.
FU-EN: Filtek Ultimate-Enamel, FU-D: Filtek Ultimate-Dentin, FU-B: Filtek Ultimate-Body, T-I: Tescera- Incisal,
T-OD: Tescera-Opaceous Dentin, T-B: Tescera-Body. W: White Background, B: Black Background.

T-B group shows a homogenous distribution without debonding of fillers particles (Figure
5(f)). In addition, FU groups show a mixture of different size particles (Figures 5(a–c)).

Discussion
Advances in restoration procedures and higher patient expectations in terms of esthetic
outcomes have led to demand for non-metallic, tooth-colored restorations in the posterior
region [2]. Indirect composite resin systems represent a means of avoiding some of the
problems of direct composite restorations. Similarly to direct composites, indirect com-
posites largely meet patients’ esthetic requirements. Clinical success has been reported for
 6   P. GUL ET AL.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

Figure 3. Commission International de l’Eclairage b* (yellowness) values (ranging from negative values
[blue] to positive values [yellow]) over white and black backgrounds for all shade groups of both composite
resin. FU-EN: Filtek Ultimate-Enamel, FU-D: Filtek Ultimate-Dentin, FU-B: Filtek Ultimate-Body, T-I: Tescera-
Incisal, T-OD: Tescera-Opaceous Dentin, T-B: Tescera-Body. W: White Background, B: Black Background.

Figure 4. Commission International de l’Eclairage Cab* (chroma) values over white and black backgrounds
for all shade groups of both composite resin. FU-EN: Filtek Ultimate-Enamel, FU-D: Filtek Ultimate-Dentin,
FU-B: Filtek Ultimate-Body, T-I: Tescera-Incisal, T-OD: Tescera-Opaceous Dentin, T-B: Tescera-Body. W: White
Background, B: Black Background.

indirect composites following investigation of clinical performance [11]. Therefore, many

colleagues prefer indirect resin composites as an esthetic material.
Translucency of resin composites usually determines using TP value in the literature
[12–14]. The TP of a material presents to the difference in color between a black and a white
background [15]. The translucency of materials should preferably remain stable following
polymerization. When a direct resin composite is employed to repair an indirect composite
resin chairside, the translucencies of the two should be matched for a successful repair.
If the TP value of the resin composite used in the repair alters after polymerization, the
physician should be aware [10].
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   7

Table 3. Predictors on the translucency values based on multiple regression analysis.

Before polymerization After polymerization
Significance Standardized Significance Standardized
Composite resin Predictors (p < .05) coefficient (ß) (p < .05) coefficient (ß)
Filtek Ultimate L*W 0.001 0.441 0.001 0.356
L*B 0.001 −0.764 0.001 −0.694
a*W 0.001 0.132 0.001 0.124
a*B 0.006 −0.089 0.001 −0.125
b*W 0.490 0.168 0.011 −0.351
b*B 0.078 −0.464 0.001 −0.500
C*abW 0.688 0.101 0.001 0.710
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

C*abB 0.699 0.098 0.919 −0.005

Tescera L*W 0.001 0.525 0.001 0.667
L*B 0.001 −0.792 0.001 −0.805
a*W 0.001 0.042 0.721 0.020
a*B 0.033 −0.026 0.458 0.044
b*W 0.001 0.448 0.001 0.628
b*B 0.001 −0.640 0.001 −0.754
C*abW 0.001 0.067 0.661 0.071
C*abB 0.337 0.005 0.757 0.027
Note: L*, a*, b* and C*ab indicate CIE L*, a*, b* and C*ab values over the white background (W) and over the black back-
ground (B).

In the present study, the translucency of different shades of one direct and indirect com-
posite was evaluated. The first null hypothesis of this study that there is no significant differ-
ence in translucency between these two commercial resin composites after polymerization,
was rejected because the TP values altered significantly (p < .05). TP values were significantly
affected by the shade groups of the materials employed (p < .01). Polymerization reduced
TP values of in the indirect composite resin and increased them in the direct resin com-
posite that were investigated. However, there were a statistically difference for the FU-EN
(t = −3.830; p = .001), T-I (t = 14.423, p = .001), and T-B (t = 7.391; p = .001) groups before
and after polymerization. In terms of shade group combinations of both composites after
polymerization, TP values were FU-EN > T-I > FU-B > T-B = FU-D > T-OD (p < .05) (Table
2). Although the lowest TP values were determined for dentine shades, highest TP values
were for the enamel shades. These findings are accordance with the findings from studies
of Kamishima et al. [16] and Ikeda et al. [17]. This should be taken into account in material
selection because the TP values of the translucency groups changed after polymerization.
The second null hypothesis was rejected because there were statistically significant cor-
relations between TP values and color parameters. The a* values of all of the shade groups
we studied increased after polymerization. However, the b* values, which are correlated
highly with Cab*, of all of shade groups except for T-I decreased. The decrease in b* values
after polymerization is due to the depletion of photoinitiator after polymerization. All of
the light-cured composites contain compounds such as camphorquinone. Camphorquinone
is a solid yellow compound with an unbleachable chromophore group, and thus a large
amount of it in resin formulas can lead to discoloration of the final polymerized resin
[18,19]. As a result, the cause of higher change in CIE b* values of T-I group of the present
study might be related to photoinitiator (CQ or other). Arikawa et al. [19] reported that b*
values decreased after polymerization in camphorquinone samples. In addition, Eldiwany
et al. [20] reported a prominent change in b* values after polymerization.
 8   P. GUL ET AL.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

Figure 5. FEG-SEM images of the surface of the composite resins. (A) FU-EN:Filtek Ultimate-Enamel. (B)
FU-D: Filtek Ultimate-Dentin. (C) FU-B: Filtek Ultimate-Body. (D) T-I: Tescera-Incisal. (E) T-OD: Tescera-
Opaceous Dentin. (F) T-B: Tescera-Body.

In polymer-based materials, changes in translucency are caused by the curing of the

resin matrix and corresponding increase of the refractive index of the matrix [21,22]. Since
the refractive index of the fillers remains unchanged while curing, the curing dependent
increase of the refractive index of the resin matrix would increase or decrease the difference
in the refractive indices between resin matrix and inorganic fillers since the initial refractive
index of the resin matrix may either above or below that of the fillers [10]. Azzopardi et al.
[1] reported that the organic matrix and filler particles were capable of affecting the trans-
lucency of experimental composites and that the TP values of composite resins depend on
their absorption and scattering. While scattering in composite resins derives from refractive
index incompatibility between the inorganic filler and organic matrix, absorption derives
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   9

from the organic matrix (matrix monomer reactivity) [23]. Lee [24] investigated the effect
of filler size on the translucency of an experimental composite and reported a decrease in
translucency as the amount of filler increased. The composites used in our study contained
similar amounts of filler, but the amount of filler for T composite was higher than for FU
composite (Table 1). However, the color of esthetic restorative materials is determined not
only by more macroscopic phenomena such as matrix, filler composition and filler content,
but also by minor aspects such as pigment additions and potentially by all other chemical
components of these materials, including the initiation monomers and silane coupling
agents [25,26].
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

The post-polymerization properties of composite resins have been shown to be affected

by the type of laboratory polymerization unit employed [27]. Major changes in optical
properties following the storage or processing of laboratory resin composites under a broad
range of environmental conditions must be considered when employing these materials.
According to Lee et al. [7] translucency in Tescera composite thermocycling did not change
greatly compared to pre-thermocycling values. They attributed the decrease in translucency
to the increased polymerization of the material and to the resulting alteration in the refrac-
tive index of the resin matrix [21]. The refractive indices between the resin matrix and the
inorganic filler would therefore differ. Water sorption may also result in discoloration and
translucency variation. Various composite materials have been reported to exhibit varying
rates of water sorption depending on the type of monomer used in their manufacture [28].
Our results also demonstrated that TP values in the T group decreased after polymerization.
A composite with higher opacity can assist with masking discolored tissue prior to appli-
cation of a composite with a translucency similar to that of enamel. This may result in clinical
difficulties because translucent composites are unable to mask the dark appearance of the
oral cavity. They are unlikely to bestow the requisite level of dentinal opacity. Even composite
resin of the optimal color may appear gray [29]. Clinicians therefore apply the technique
known as ‘layering,’ which involves more translucent composites being placed over more
opaque composites to achieve depth in restoration [30,31]. T composite material has a wide
range of colors, and its TP values before and after polymerization do not generally exhibit
significant differences in opaque groups (p > .05). TP differences of composite resins after
polymerization increased in the FU group and decreased in the T group in this study, which
should be taken into account, especially in the selection of transparent composites used as
a film over opaque composites or in repairs.
The color and translucency of human teeth vary widely from individual to individual,
from region to region in the mouth, and even from tooth to tooth. The correct choice
of restorative material is essential for a successful esthetic outcome. Recent research and
improvements in adhesive dentistry have greatly facilitated the selection of correct sub-
stances and methods. Nonetheless, no ideal material exists, despite all of these advances.
Physicians require a sound knowledge of the physical, mechanical, chemical, and biological
properties of restorative materials to reduce disadvantages to a minimum.
The fact that combined effect of translucency, shade, and the thickness of resin was
not considered is one of the limitations of this study. Thus, further studies investigating
the combined effect of these properties are required to optimize the optical properties of
multilayered restorative composite restorations.
 10   P. GUL ET AL.

Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that the translucency of resin com-
posites was affected by polymerization and color parameters. Polymerization reduced TP
values in most shades of indirect composite resins and increased them in the direct resin
composites investigated. Dentine shades had the lowest translucency values, and the enamel
shades had the highest translucency values. When restorative materials are being selected
during clinical procedures, material translucency should be taken into account to obtain
an esthetic appearance similar to that of the restored tooth.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Research Fund of Atatürk University [project number: 2013/49]. In
addition, this study presented at the Restorative Dentistry Association’s 19th International Scientific
Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 27–28 October 2014.

ORCID
Verda Turel   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0869-2067

References
  [1] Azzopardi N, Moharamzadeh K, Wood DJ, et al. Effect of resin matrix composition on the
translucency of experimental dental composite resins. Dent Mater. 2009;25:1564–1568.
  [2] Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL. Restorative dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis (MO): Mosby; 2006.
  [3] Ikejima I, Nomoto R, McCabe JF. Shear punch strength and flexural strength of model composites
with varying filler volume fraction, particle size and silanation. Dent Mater. 2003;19:206–211.
  [4] Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials.
JADA. 2003;134:1382–1390.
  [5] Nandini S. Indirect resin composites. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13:184–194.
  [6] Sarıdag S, Helvacıoglu-Yigit D, Alnıacık G, et al. Radiopacity measurements of direct and
indirect resin composites at different thicknesses using digital image analysis. Dent Mater J.
2015;34:13–18.
  [7] Lee SH, Lee YK, Lim BS. Influence of thermocycling on the optical properties of laboratory
resin composites and an all-ceramic material. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2004;15:1221–1226.
  [8] Nishimaki M. Depth of cure and hardness of indirect composite materials polymerized with
two metal halide laboratory curing units. J Oral Sci. 2012;54:121–125.
  [9] Joiner A. Tooth colour: a review of the literature. J Dent. 2004;32:3–12.
[10] Woo ST, Yu B, Ahn JS, et al. Comparison of translucency between indirect and direct resin
composites. J Dent. 2008;36:637–642.
[11] Douglas RD. Color stability of new-generation indirect resins for prosthodontic application. J
Prosthet Den. 2000;83:166–170.
[12] Arimoto A, Nakajima M, Hosaka K, et al. Translucency, opalescence and light transmission
characteristics of light-cured resin composites. Dent Mater. 2010;26:1090–1097.
[13] Li Q, Xu BT, Li R, et al. Spectrophotometric comparison of translucent composites and natural
enamel. J Dent. 2010;38:e117–e122.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   11

[14] Takenaka S, Wakamatsu R, Ozoe Y, et al. Translucency and color change of tooth-colored

temporary coating materials. Am J Dent. 2009;22:361–365.
[15] Johnston WM, Ma T, Kienle BH. Translucency parameter of colorants for maxillofacial
prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 1995;8:79–86.
[16] Kamishima N, Ikeda T, Sano H. Color and translucency of resin composites for layering
techniques. Dent Mater J. 2005;24:428–432.
[17] Ikeda T, Sidhu SK, Omata Y, et al. Colour and translucency of opaque-shades and body-shades
of resin composites. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005;113:170–173.
[18] Arikawa H, Kanie T, Fujii K, et al. Optical and color stabilities of paint-on resins for shade
modification of restorative resins. Dent Mater J. 2004;23:155–160.
[19] Arikawa H, Takahashi H, Kanie T, et al. Effect of various visible light photoinitiators on the
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 06:12 27 November 2017

polymerization and color of light-activated resins. Dent Mater J. 2009;28:454–460.

[20] Eldiwany M, Friedl KH, Powers JM. Color stability of light cured and post-cured composites.
Am J Dent. 1995;8:179–181.
[21] Nakamura T, Saito O, Mizuno M, et al. Changes in translucency and color of particulate filler
composite resins. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15:494–499.
[22] Shortall AC, Palin WM, Burtscher P. Refractive index mismatch and monomer reactivity
influence composite curing depth. J Dent Res. 2008;87:84–88.
[23] Pérez MM, Ghinea R, Ugarte-Alván L, et al. Color and translucency in silorane-based resin
composite compared to universal and nanofilled composites. J Dent. 2010;38:e110–e116.
[24] Lee YK. Influence of filler on the difference between the transmitted and reflected colors of
experimental resin composites. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1243–1247.
[25] Johnston WM, Reisbick MH. Color and translucency changes during and after curing of esthetic
restorative materials. Dent Mater. 1997;13:89–97.
[26] Cengiz S, Sarac S, Özcan M. Effects of simulated gastric juice on color stability, surface roughness
and microhardness of laboratory-processed composites. Dent Mater J. 2014;33:343–348.
[27] Tanoue N, Atsuta M, Matsumura H. Properties of a new photo-activated composite polymerized
with three different laboratory photo-curing units. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:832–836.
[28] Miettinen VM, Narva KK, Vallittu PK. Water sorption, solubility and effect of post-curing of
glass fibre reinforced polymers. Biomaterials. 1999;20:1187–1194.
[29] Ikeda T, Murata Y, Sano H. Translucency of opaque-shade resin composites. Am J Dent.
2004;17:127–130.
[30] Kim SJ, Son HH, Cho BH, et al. Translucency and masking ability of various opaque-shade
composite resins. J Dent. 2009;37:102–107.
[31] Ryan EA, Tam LE, Mc Comb D. Comparative translucency of esthetic composite resin restorative
materials. J Can Dent Assoc. 2010;76:a84.