A Comparative Study of Light Transmission by Various Dental Restorative Materials and the Tooth Structure

Clinical Relevance Light transmission through dental materials and tooth structure has direct clinical implication on such factors as selecting an appropriate curing technique during a restorative process. SUMMARY Introduction: This study aims to quantify and compare the amount of light that passes through seven different types of direct and indirect restorative materials comprising light-cured resin based composites (regular and bulk-fill), computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) restoratives such as resin based composites, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) resin, leucite glass-ceramic, lithium silicate glass-ceramic, feldspar ceramic, and the natural tooth structure. Methods and Materials: Individual sets (n=6) of plane-parallel test specimens (2 mm) of 32 restorative materials belonging to the aforementioned seven material types and the tooth structure were prepared. Within the analyzed materials, one leucite glass-ceramic and one lithium disilicate glass-ceramic were considered in two different translucencies. In addition, two light-cured resin composites, one CAD/CAM resin composite, and one lithium disilicate glass-ceramic were considered in two different shades. Optical properties (transmittance, T; absorbance, A; and opacity, O) of each material were calculated from the relationship between incident and transmitted irradiance [I(d)] using a violet-blue light-curing unit. Incident and transmitted irradiance were assessed in real time on a spectrophotometer. A multivariate analysis (general linear model) assessed the effects of various parameters on the optical properties. Results: A very strong influence of the parameter material was identified on I(d) (p<0.001; partial eta squared, ηP2=0.953), T (p<0.001; ηP2=0.951), A (p<0.001; ηP2=0.925), and O (p<0.001; ηP2=0.886), while the effect of the parameter material type was not significant (p=0.079, p=0.05, p=0.05, and p=0.051, respectively). Light attenuation differed significantly by material within each shade category and by shade category within the analyzed material. Conclusions: Attenuation of light through restorative materials and tooth structure is high (59.9% to 94.9%); thus, deficits in polymerization are difficult to compensate for by additional light exposure at the end of the restorative process.