Objective: To compare the CIE L*, a*, and b* color parameters of various 3D-printed and direct composite resins, all labeled with the A2 shade, and to evaluate whether their color differences (ΔE₀₀) relative to the VitaPan A2 reference standard remain within clinically acceptable thresholds. Materials and Methods: Three direct resin composites and two ceramic-filled 3D-printed crown resins were evaluated. For each material, six disc-shaped specimens (10 mm × 2 mm) were fabricated, all corresponding to the Vita A2 shade. Color measurements were obtained using a spectrophotometer within the CIE L*a*b* color space. Color differences relative to the Vita Pan A2 standard were calculated employing the CIEDE2000 formula (ΔE₀₀). Statistical analyses were conducted using one-way ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni and Games-Howell post hoc tests (p < 0.05). Results: Significant differences were observed among the materials with respect to L*, a*, b*, and ΔE₀₀ values (p < 0.001). Crowntec exhibited the highest L* value, whereas Charisma Smart demonstrated the highest a* value. Charisma Smart, Crowntec, and Permanent Crown presented higher b* values compared to Estelite Sigma Quick and Filtek Z250. Although Filtek Z250 and Estelite Sigma Quick displayed comparable ΔE₀₀ values, only Filtek Z250 remained below the clinical acceptability threshold (ΔE₀₀ < 1.8), indicating an acceptable color match with the VitaPan A2 shade. Conclusion: Resin-based materials labeled as A2 showed significant differences in L*, a*, b*, and ΔE₀₀ values, indicating that the A2 shade label does not ensure a clinically acceptable color match with the VitaPan A2 shade, as only Filtek Z250 exhibited ΔE₀₀ values below the threshold for clinical acceptability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sevencan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: