Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin composite
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Brazilian Dental Science |
Texto Completo: | https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648 |
Resumo: | Objective: To evaluate the visual perception of surface gloss of resin composite under different illuminants by different observers. Material and methods: twelve cylindrical specimens (6mm x 1mm) were fabricated using a nanofilled resin composite (Z350, A2E shade) in order to compare different observers and to determine the limit of perceptibility of surface gloss. Bovine tooth specimen with similar dimensions was obtained for the comparison of different illuminants. Polishing of resin specimens was performed resulting in 6 groups, presenting surface gloss values at 10, 25, 40, 55, 70, and 85 GU (gloss units), measured by glossmeter (NOVOCURVE). Fifteen individuals were selected: 5 lay-person, 5 undergraduate students, and 5 dental professionals. Participants observed the specimens in a light booth (Gti lightbox) under three different illuminants, and rated the possible combinations between resin specimens or with the bovine enamel specimen (85GU). Data obtained were analyzed by PROBIT non-linear regression analysis (?=0.05). Results: Differences were observed among types of illuminants (p=0.042) and ?GU (p=0.004), with no interaction between factors (p=0.139). The fluorescent light presented lower surface gloss perceptibility values in relation to incandescent light. There was no influence by type of observers (p =0.598). The surface gloss perception limit was 17.6 GU under the presented tested conditions. Conclusion: the illuminant type influenced perception of gloss, with lower percentage of perceptibility for fluorescent light, while such perceptibility was not influence by different observers. Keywords Illuminants; Observer variation; Composite resins; Surface gloss. |
id |
UNESP-20_e6f153fbcb36f61d5c6529172eaf8d43 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/1648 |
network_acronym_str |
UNESP-20 |
network_name_str |
Brazilian Dental Science |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin compositeObjective: To evaluate the visual perception of surface gloss of resin composite under different illuminants by different observers. Material and methods: twelve cylindrical specimens (6mm x 1mm) were fabricated using a nanofilled resin composite (Z350, A2E shade) in order to compare different observers and to determine the limit of perceptibility of surface gloss. Bovine tooth specimen with similar dimensions was obtained for the comparison of different illuminants. Polishing of resin specimens was performed resulting in 6 groups, presenting surface gloss values at 10, 25, 40, 55, 70, and 85 GU (gloss units), measured by glossmeter (NOVOCURVE). Fifteen individuals were selected: 5 lay-person, 5 undergraduate students, and 5 dental professionals. Participants observed the specimens in a light booth (Gti lightbox) under three different illuminants, and rated the possible combinations between resin specimens or with the bovine enamel specimen (85GU). Data obtained were analyzed by PROBIT non-linear regression analysis (?=0.05). Results: Differences were observed among types of illuminants (p=0.042) and ?GU (p=0.004), with no interaction between factors (p=0.139). The fluorescent light presented lower surface gloss perceptibility values in relation to incandescent light. There was no influence by type of observers (p =0.598). The surface gloss perception limit was 17.6 GU under the presented tested conditions. Conclusion: the illuminant type influenced perception of gloss, with lower percentage of perceptibility for fluorescent light, while such perceptibility was not influence by different observers. Keywords Illuminants; Observer variation; Composite resins; Surface gloss.Institute of Science and Technology of São José dos Campos2018-10-24info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documentimage/tiffimage/tiffimage/tiffimage/tiffapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documentapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documenthttps://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/164810.14295/bds.2018.v21i4.1648Brazilian Dental Science; Vol. 21 No. 4 (2018): Oct. - Dec. / 2018 - Published October 2018; 451-460Brazilian Dental Science; v. 21 n. 4 (2018): Oct. - Dec. / 2018 - Published October 2018; 451-4602178-6011reponame:Brazilian Dental Scienceinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)instacron:UNESPenghttps://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/1290https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3482https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3483https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3484https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3485https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3486https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3487https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3488Copyright (c) 2018 Brazilian Dental Scienceinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTessarin, Fernanda Bastos PereiraMeirelles, Laura Célia FernandesRocha, Rafael SantosCaneppele, Taciana Marco FerrazBresciani, Eduardo2020-01-28T12:07:09Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/1648Revistahttp://bds.ict.unesp.br/PUBhttp://ojs.fosjc.unesp.br/index.php/index/oaisergio@fosjc.unesp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br2178-60112178-6011opendoar:2022-11-08T16:30:19.011505Brazilian Dental Science - Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)true |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin composite |
title |
Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin composite |
spellingShingle |
Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin composite Tessarin, Fernanda Bastos Pereira |
title_short |
Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin composite |
title_full |
Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin composite |
title_fullStr |
Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin composite |
title_full_unstemmed |
Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin composite |
title_sort |
Influence of illuminants and different observers on the perception of surface gloss of resin composite |
author |
Tessarin, Fernanda Bastos Pereira |
author_facet |
Tessarin, Fernanda Bastos Pereira Meirelles, Laura Célia Fernandes Rocha, Rafael Santos Caneppele, Taciana Marco Ferraz Bresciani, Eduardo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Meirelles, Laura Célia Fernandes Rocha, Rafael Santos Caneppele, Taciana Marco Ferraz Bresciani, Eduardo |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Tessarin, Fernanda Bastos Pereira Meirelles, Laura Célia Fernandes Rocha, Rafael Santos Caneppele, Taciana Marco Ferraz Bresciani, Eduardo |
description |
Objective: To evaluate the visual perception of surface gloss of resin composite under different illuminants by different observers. Material and methods: twelve cylindrical specimens (6mm x 1mm) were fabricated using a nanofilled resin composite (Z350, A2E shade) in order to compare different observers and to determine the limit of perceptibility of surface gloss. Bovine tooth specimen with similar dimensions was obtained for the comparison of different illuminants. Polishing of resin specimens was performed resulting in 6 groups, presenting surface gloss values at 10, 25, 40, 55, 70, and 85 GU (gloss units), measured by glossmeter (NOVOCURVE). Fifteen individuals were selected: 5 lay-person, 5 undergraduate students, and 5 dental professionals. Participants observed the specimens in a light booth (Gti lightbox) under three different illuminants, and rated the possible combinations between resin specimens or with the bovine enamel specimen (85GU). Data obtained were analyzed by PROBIT non-linear regression analysis (?=0.05). Results: Differences were observed among types of illuminants (p=0.042) and ?GU (p=0.004), with no interaction between factors (p=0.139). The fluorescent light presented lower surface gloss perceptibility values in relation to incandescent light. There was no influence by type of observers (p =0.598). The surface gloss perception limit was 17.6 GU under the presented tested conditions. Conclusion: the illuminant type influenced perception of gloss, with lower percentage of perceptibility for fluorescent light, while such perceptibility was not influence by different observers. Keywords Illuminants; Observer variation; Composite resins; Surface gloss. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-10-24 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648 10.14295/bds.2018.v21i4.1648 |
url |
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.14295/bds.2018.v21i4.1648 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/1290 https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3482 https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3483 https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3484 https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3485 https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3486 https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3487 https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1648/3488 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Brazilian Dental Science info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Brazilian Dental Science |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document image/tiff image/tiff image/tiff image/tiff application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Institute of Science and Technology of São José dos Campos |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Institute of Science and Technology of São José dos Campos |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Dental Science; Vol. 21 No. 4 (2018): Oct. - Dec. / 2018 - Published October 2018; 451-460 Brazilian Dental Science; v. 21 n. 4 (2018): Oct. - Dec. / 2018 - Published October 2018; 451-460 2178-6011 reponame:Brazilian Dental Science instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Brazilian Dental Science |
collection |
Brazilian Dental Science |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Dental Science - Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
sergio@fosjc.unesp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br |
_version_ |
1788346900623130624 |