PMC:2854328 / 9432-12289
Annnotations
{"target":"https://pubannotation.org/docs/sourcedb/PMC/sourceid/2854328","sourcedb":"PMC","sourceid":"2854328","source_url":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/2854328","text":"RESULTS\nMean color change (ΔE) results are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The initial bleaching resulted in minimal color changes (ΔE1\u003c 2) in all subgroups regardless of the bleaching agent used. Tukey’s Post Hoc test indicated no significant difference between DF and TPH3 in both composite shades (Tables 2 and 3). However, Beyond showed significantly higher bleaching results (P=0.009) in shade A2 only as compared to the other groups.\nStaining of the specimens resulted in a more perceivable color change. In addition, mean ΔE2 values were higher in the DF subgroups compared to the TPH3, with the difference significant only in shade A4 (P=0.001) (Table 2). In shade A2, specimens previously bleached with LumaWhite-Plus showed significantly higher staining (P=0.025) compared to the other two bleaching systems (Table 3). Values for ΔE for after staining are preceded with a negative sign to indicate that the color change was to a darker shade.\nThe color difference after the second bleaching session from baseline was higher in DF subgroups compared to TPH3; however, the difference was only statistically significant in shade A4 (P=0.035) (Table 2). The type of bleaching system used showed no statistically significant effect on ΔE3 in any of the composite subgroups (Table 3).\nIn regards to ΔE3S, which denotes the ability of the bleaching to remove acquired stains from the treated composite resins, the DF subgroups generally showed significantly higher values in both shades (P=0.036, P\u003c.001) (Table 2). Beyond was generally more efficient, followed by LumaWhite-Plus. The least whitening values were obtained with Opalescence Boost subgroups (Table 3).\nSurface roughness results are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Figures 1 through 4 show images of surface roughness histograms in 3D for some representative specimens. With regard to the effect of composite brand on surface roughness (Table 4), TPH3 subgroups showed significantly higher values compared to DF in shade A2, after first (P=0.011) and second bleaching sessions (P\u003c.001). However, the reverse was encountered in shade A4. As for the effect of the bleaching agent (Table 5), LumaWhite-Plus subgroups showed significantly higher values in shade A2, after the second bleaching session (P\u003c.001). With shade A4, Opalescence Boost resulted in significantly higher surface roughness compared to the other subgroups after the first bleaching session (P=0.039). After the second bleaching session, both Opalescence Boost and LumaWhite-Plus subgroups showed significantly higher surface roughness values compared to Beyond subgroup (P\u003c.001).\nPearson’s correlation coefficient indicated that a positive correlation existed between color and surface roughness changes for both shades of composites tested. However, this correlation was only statistically significant after the second bleaching session.","divisions":[{"label":"title","span":{"begin":0,"end":7}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":8,"end":432}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":433,"end":945}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":946,"end":1281}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":1282,"end":1661}},{"label":"p","span":{"begin":1662,"end":2598}}],"tracks":[]}