Influence of Thickness in the Color Masking Ability of Different Types of Computer‐Aided Design and Manufacturing Ceramics
Seyede Mohaddeseh Hosseini Kalej, Behnaz Esmaeili, Ghazaleh Ahmadi Zenouz, Hemmat GholiniaABSTRACT
Objectives
Tooth discoloration is a major esthetic concern in cosmetic dentistry. This study investigated the color‐masking ability of four CAD/CAM ceramics and the influence of material type and thickness on their optical properties.
Materials and Methods
A total of 120 A1‐shade CAD/CAM ceramic specimens were prepared from Vitablocs Mark II, Vita Suprinity PC, Celtra Duo, and Ceramill Zolid FX ( n = 30 per material). Each material was fabricated in three thicknesses (0.5, 1, and 1.5 mm; n = 10). Color‐masking ability was evaluated using A1 and A5 composite substrates. Translucency of 1‐mm specimens was assessed against black and white backgrounds. CIELab values were measured using a spectrophotometer, and color differences (Δ E ∗ ab , Δ E 00 ) and translucency parameters (TP, TP 00 ) were calculated. Data were analyzed using one‐way and two‐way ANOVA and Tukey's test ( p < 0.05).
Results
Ceramic thickness significantly influenced color differences, with thicker ceramics exhibiting lower color differences and greater masking ability ( p < 0.001). Significant differences in translucency parameters and color difference values were also observed among the tested ceramics ( p < 0.001). Zolid FX at 1.5 mm showed the highest color‐masking ability, whereas Vita Suprinity at 0.5 mm showed the lowest.
Conclusions
The study showed that increasing the thickness of ceramic materials significantly improved their ability to mask underlying colors, highlighting the importance of material depth in achieving esthetic results. Furthermore, it was found that a thickness of at least 1 mm is required for zirconia ceramics (ZF) and 1.5 mm for VM ceramics to effectively mask an A5 background shade. In contrast, Celtra (CD) and Vita Suprinity (VS) ceramics did not demonstrate adequate color masking effectiveness at any of the tested thicknesses, indicating their drawbacks for clinical scenarios where optimal esthetic outcomes are essential.