Fluorescence Level of Composites Assessed by Computer Processing of Digital Images - ScanWhite

The human dentition is naturally translucent, opalescent and fluorescent. Differences between the level of fluorescence of tooth structure and restorative materials may result in distinct metameric properties and consequently perceptible disparate esthetic behavior, which impairs the esthetic result of the restorations, frustrating both patients and staff. In this study, we evaluated the level of fluorescence of different composites (Durafill in tones A2 (Du), Charisma in tones A2 (Ch), Venus in tone A2 (Ve), Opallis enamel and dentin in tones A2 (OPD and OPE), Point 4 in tones A2 (P4), Z100 in tones A2 ( Z1), Z250 in tones A2 (Z2), Te-Econom in tones A2 (TE), Tetric Ceram in tones A2 (TC), Tetric Ceram N in tones A1, A2, A4 (TN1, TN2, TN4), Four seasons enamel and dentin in tones A2 (and 4SD 4SE), Empress Direct enamel and dentin in tones A2 (EDE and EDD) and Brilliant in tones A2 (Br)). Cylindrical specimens were prepared, coded and photographed in a standardized manner with a Canon EOS digital camera (400 ISO, 2.8 aperture and 1/ 30 speed), in a dark environment under the action of UV light (25 W). The images were analyzed with the software ScanWhite©-DMC/Darwin systems. The results showed statistical differences between the groups (p < 0.05), and between these same groups and the average fluorescence of the dentition of young (18 to 25 years) and adults (40 to 45 years) taken as control. It can be concluded that: Composites Z100, Z250 (3M ESPE) and Point 4 (Kerr) do not match with the fluorescence of human dentition and the fluorescence of the materials was found to be affected by their own tone.