Color stability .

of dental
composite resin materials for
crown and bridge veneers

I. E. Ruyter, K. Nilner, B. M611er

NIOM, ScandinavianInstituteof Dental
Materials, Oslo, Norway

Ruyter IE, Nilner K, MOiler B. Color stability of dental composite resin

materials for crown and bridge veneers. Dent Mater 1987: 3: 246-251.
Abstract - The color stability of 3 light-polymerized veneer materials were
investigated and compared to that of 3 conventional heat- and auto-polymerized
veneer materials. Three sample discs of each material in distilled water at 37~
were exposed to a xenon-light source. Another 3 specimens were kept in
darkness and exposed to distilled water at 37~ The color characteristics of all
the samples were measured by a computercontrolled spectrophotometer. The
appearence was characterized by means of the L*, a* and b* uniform color
space (CIELAB) and the total color difference was calculated. The accelerated
test had the ability to discriminate between the various products. The time
studied (2 months) would probably correspond to several years of clinical use.

Tooth-colored polymeric restorative

materials have been criticized for their
lack of color stability (1) almost since
they were introduced as veneer materials in the 1940s (2). It was, however,
not until the composite resin direct filling materials were introduced that the
lack of color stability became an issue.
Leinfelder et al (3) presented a clinical
evaluation of composite resin restorative materials and from then on several
color tests, both clinical evaluations

and laboratory studies, have been completed (4).

One disadvantage of polymeric materials for veneers is the poor adaptation between the metal base and the
polymeric material. This might give rise
to a color change (5) although this discoloration is a secondary effect. Color
change as a primary inherent material
property has lately been studied for
composite restorative materials (6-12).
Light-polymerized composite mate-

Key words: light induced polymerization, color

measurements
Dr. I. Eystein Ruyter, NIOM - Scandinavian
Institute of Dental Materials, Forskningsveien 1,
0371 Oslo 3, Norway
Received June 2, 1986; accepted January 5,
1987.

rials were recently introduced as veneer

materials for crown and bridgework.
Reconstruction of entire tooth surfaces
with materials similar to those designed
for comparatively small Class III and V
fillings increases the requirement for
color stability. Poor color stability is,
otherwise, only one of the factors
which could jeopardize the result of extensive restorative measures.
We considered it of interest to investigate the color stability of some of the

Table 1. Materials tested.

Brand, name

Material and batch no.

Code

Manufacturer

Light source

Time
sec

Polymerization
mode

Dentacolor

Dentin, Color D121

401124
Dentin, Color 13 305104

DC

Kulzer:, FRG

DentacolorR XS

180

light

EB

PLC-2000

90

light

ESPE VISIOGEMa

Dentin~ Color E23 K209

VG

Schiitz-Dental GmbH,
FRG
ESPE, FRG

5-10
900

light

VITAPAN
K+B N
VITAPAN
K+B S
VITAPAN
K+B K

AI Dentin Powder 43021

Normal liquid N 60092
A1 Dentin Powder 43021
Special liquid S 60092
A1 Dentin Powder 43021
Initiator 43020
Liquid K 60004

VP-N

Vita Zahnfabrik, FRG

ESPE VISIO R ALFA

ESPE VISIO R BETA
with vacuum pump
-

heat

VP-S

Vita Zahnfabrik, FRG

heat

VP-K

Vita Zahnfabrik, FRG

chemical

Elcebond

247

Color stability o f veneers

*~
LU

ui
o
Z

<1

oc

i -I

Ea

8
o

EB
~' VG

S
I-I

240

720

960

1200

480

1440

TIME, h

Fig. 1. Total color difference (AE*ab)with time for all 3 light-polymerized materials after exposure to water in the dark. The uniform standard deviation of AE*abaveraged + 0.3 below
240 h, at 720 h + 0.35, and at 1140 h + 0.4.

new light-polymerized veneer materials

in~c0mparison to the color stability of
conventional heat- and auto-polymerized veneer materials.

Material and methods

The materials with light activated polymerization as well as the heat- and
auto-polymerized materials used in this
study are presented in Table 1.
Seven sample discs of each material
with a diameter of 35 mm and approximately 1.4 mm thickness were prepared
by polymerizing the materials in a
metal mould. In the case of light activated materials the samples in the
moulds were cured with the radiation
equipment. Specimens of the heat- and
auto-polymerized materials were polymerized according to the manufacturer's instructions in the same kind of
mould. The specimens were ground
(Struers Waterproof silicon carbide 120
C, 500 C and 1200 B, Struers Scientific
Instruments, Denmark) to a thickness
of 1.3 _+ .02 mm.
The surface qualities of the finished
sample discs were inspected visually in
a viewing box (Color-Chex, Atlas Electric Devices Co., IL, USA) under artificial daylight representing a phase of
daylight with a correlated color temperature of approximately 6504 K (Illuminant 065) (13).
The finished test discs were used to
study changes in appearance with time
(24-1440 h) during exposure to a xe-

non-light source (Suntest NXE 1500,

Original Hanau Quartzlampen GmbH,
FRG) and water.
The light source is based on a low
pressure xenon burner equipped with
filters to reduce transmission to less
than 1% below 300 nm, and allow
greater than 90% transmission above
370 nm. The filters Consist of a coated
quartz glass disc and a special ultraviolet borosilicate glass filter (Suprax
glass). The sample discs are placed in

*iii~
<~
u2
O
Z
w
er
~
___
~
(~
~
O
<~
I---

holders on a specimen table. The light

intensity is 150 + 10 klx at any time
over the entire table area. The radiation corresponds to standard global
radiation. The light intensity was measured regularly with a radiometer (Universal Lightmeter, Model S I , B.
Hagner AB, Sweden). The performance of the light source was as specified
in international standards (14-15).
Three sample discs of each brand were
covered with a 10 mm layer of distilled
water. The temperature of the water
was maintained at 37 + 5~ by means
of a thermocirculator (Thermomix,
1480 THP, B. Braun Melsungen AG,
FRG).
Three specimens of each brand of the
veneer materials were also exposed to
water but in darkness. One disc of each
brand was kept in the dark as a reference for visual inspection.
The color characteristics of all the
samples were measured by a fully automatic, computer-controlled spectrophotometer designed for diffuse/0~ reflectance. This system is based on a ultraviolet-visible light single beam
spectrophotometer (Model PMQ 3,
Carl Zeiss, FRG) with one integrating
sphere reflectance attachment with
gloss trap and with a viewing port of 30
mm diameter (RA 3, Carl Zeiss,
FRG). The spectrophotometer system
was connected to a computer system
(Apple II, Apple Computer Inc., CA,
USA).
Reflectance values versus wave-

879 EB

65-

DC

49

3~

-- VG

21
I

240

480

720

9()0

12'00

1440

TIME, h

Fig. 2. Total color difference (AE*ab)with time for all 3 light-polymerized materials after exposure to water and xenon light. The uniform standard deviation of AE*ab averaged + 0.3
below 240 h, at 720 h + 0.5, and at 1440 h +_ 0.8.

Ruyter et al.

248

'l

TIME, h

,80
9

diagram is a curvilinear transformation

of the CIE 1931 (x,y)-chromaticity diagram, i.e. straight lines in the (x,y)diagram become curved lines in the
(a*b*)-diagram (21).
Of the existing color difference formulas the difference formulas of CIELAB and CIELUV are at the present
time internationally recommended.
The difference formulas of CIELAB
were originally intended for measurement of small color differences,
whereas those of CIELUV were intended for large color differences (22).
These color systems with rectangular
coordinates are quantitative systems,
and they have a meaningful relation to
human visual perception of color differences. Total color differences are expressed by the formulas:

7'~0

9(~0

1200

14~40

Fig. 3. Chromaticity difference (AC*ab) with time for material EB after exposure to water in
darkness (solid dots) and xenon light (open dots). The uniform standard deviation of AC*ab
averaged 0.25 in the dark and 0.1 inthe light below 240 h, at 720 h _+0.4 in the dark and
0.3 in the light, and at 1440 h 0.5 both for dark and light.
length were obtained for each specimen
between 380 and 720 nm. Each specimen was evaluated in the sample port
backed by a white standard and a black
standard (Carl Zeiss, FRG). For calibration purposes a freshly prepared
white standard was used (Bariumsulfat
fuer Weisstandard DIN 5033, Art.
1748, E. Merck, FRG).
The tristimulus values (X, Y, Z) relative to the CIE color-matching functions for CIE standard Illuminant D65
was computed at 10 nm intervals (16).
The appearance of the sample discs
were characterized by means of the L*,
a* and b* uniform color space (CIELAB) (17), which were calculated from
the tristimulus values.
A n estimated opacity or reflection efficiency was obtained by calculation of
the contrast ratio (CR) of luminous reflectance with the specimen disc backed
by a black standard and luminous reflectance with the disk backed by a
white ceramic standard, Yb/Yw (8, 18,
19).
The black standard was a matt black
painted hollow body with the back wall
covered with black velvet (X = 0; Y =
0; Z = 0). The white standard was of a
colorless ceramic material with the tristimulus values: X = 78.148; Y =
82.915; Z -- 88.08 corresponding to L*
-- 92.98; a* = -1.27; b* = 1.52.
of CIE

color

scales

and

color

differences

Perception of appearance is dependent

on 3 factors: 1) illumination; 2) object;
3) observer. For the color measure-

The total color difference AE*ab can be

split up into components. Perceived
lightness difference, AL* and a change
in chroma, AC*ab- A quantification of
chroma is defined by the equation:

merits, the light source was characterized as a simulated natural daylight

with the black body color temperature
of 6504 K, D65. The standard colorimetric observer, i.e. the combined
spectrophotometer-computer system,
was defined as a hypothetical observer
having the tristimulus colormixture
data recommended in 1931 by CIE for
a field of vision of 1-4 ~ i.e. 2~ observer
(20).
The CIELAB is an approximately
uniform color space with the coordinates for lightness, i.e. white-black, L*;
redness-greenness, a*; and yellownessblueness, b*. The (a*b*)-chromaticity

C*ab

((a*) 2 + (b*)2) 89

Accordingly a change
(AC*ab) is given by:

in

chroma

AChroma = ChromasampleCbromareference

In order to correlate the measured

color differences with visual color tolerances in the clinical situation, duplicate

10-

tu

VP-K

mZ
W
nLtl
LL

u_

6-

nO

-J
O
O

4-

2-

,.J
p-

9 VP-N
r

---"

Rationale

AE*ab = ( ( A L * ) 2 -1- ( A a * ) 2 -I- ( A b * ) 2 ) '~

240

480

- VP-S

720

960

1200

1440

TIME, h

Fig. 4. Total color difference (AE*ab) with time for the auto-polymerized and the 2 heatpolymerized materials after exposure to water in darkness. The uniform standard deviation
of AE*,b averaged _+ 0.2 for all measurements.

Color stability o f veneers

20 84

difference is a measure of chroma of an

exposed specimen in comparison with
that of non-exposed reference specimen, and a decreasing chromaticity difference is a reflection of bleaching of
the exposed specimen.
The results of the color stability tests
of the heat- and chemically polymerized materials are presented in Figs.
4--8. The specimens of VP-N and VP-S
exhibited excellent color stability
whereas VP-K was poor in this respect
(Figs. 4, 5). The increasing values by
time for auto-polymerized material
stored under water both in darkness
and xenon light indicate heavy discoloration, significantly different from the
heat-polymerized material. In Figs. 6-8
some of the total color difference components contributing to the total discoloration of the auto-polymerized material are presented separately. In Fig. 6
the increasing redness (a*) of the material after xenonlight exposure and the
redness of the material after exposure
to water in darkness are illustrated.
Correspondingly, Fig. 7 shows the initial marked increase in yellowness of
the xenon light-exposed material. This
value decreased with time. The continuous increase in yellow appearance of
the material exposed to water only exceeded that of the light-exposed material after approximately 1000 h exposure,
The increasing contrast ratio (CR) in
the auto-polymerized material with
time is shown in Fig. 8. The increase
was more pronounced after xenon-light
exposure under water than after wet

18-

VP-K

16~:~14~12-

n,,~ 1014.

8nO
_1 60
0
_1 4<:

2, o

960

480

VP-S

12'oo

14:4o

TIME, h

Fig. 5. Total color difference (AE*ab) with time for the auto-polymerized and the 2 heatpolymerized materials after exposure to water and xenon light. The uniform standard deviaton of AE*abfor the auto-polymerized material VP-K averaged _+0.5 below 240 h, at 720 h _+
2.0, and at 1440 h _+2.4. The uniform standard deviation of AE*~bfor the 2 heat-polymerized
materials after exposure to water and xenon light averaged + 0.1 below 240 h, at 270 h _ 0.3,
and at 1440 h + 0.4.

discs of a chemically cured composite

restorative material (Concise Universal
Shade, 3M, MN, USA) were prepared
as described for the materials for crown
and bridge veneers. One of the discs
was used as a control, The second disc
of each pair was exposed to the xenonlight source to study changes in appearance with time (6-200 h). The pairs of
exposed and unexposed samples on a
white background were observed in the
viewing box under artificial daylight
(D65) by 12 observers, 6 dentists and 6
chemists. These observers were asked
to describe whether the composite disc
pair showed an acceptable or an unacceptable color difference. The difference was considered unacceptable
when the observer subjectively would
not accept such a color difference between v e n e e r s on adjacent teeth in
vivo. The observation was made 3
times on 3 different days under the
same viewing conditions. All discs were
also photometrically measured,

Results
The total color difference AE*ab for all
3 light-polymerized composite veneer
materials after up to 1440 h in water
and darkness is presented in Fig. 1.
Corresponding values after xenon light
exposure in water are presented in Fig.
2. From the results presented in Fig. 2

249

it is evident that the color stability of

material EB is significantly different
from that of the materials DC and VG.
A higher value (AE*ab) in Figs. 1, 2 reflects increasing discoloration of the
material.
The discoloration of material EB after exposure to xenon light for 1440 h is
partly explained by the increasing chromaticity difference (AC*~b) which is
presented in Fig. 3. The chromaticity
~ 14,
~ 12o9
~10-

~ 8I 6~ 4tu
Z
r~2.
LU
ni

240

480

720

960

1200

1440

TIME, h
Fig. 6. Redness-greenness (a*) with time for the auto-polymerized material VP-K after exposure to water in darkness (solid dots) and xenon light (open dots). The uniform standard deviation of a* averaged _+0.4 for all measurements of the specimens exposed to water in darkness. For the specimens exposed to water and light the uniform standard deviation of a*
averaged _+ 0.5 below 240 h, at 720 h + 0.9, and at 1440 h _+ 1.3.

250

Ruyter et al.

40-

35i

S
30-

._1
._1

tu 25
>i

24-0

480

720

960

1200

1440

TIME, h
Fig. 7. Yellowness-blueness (b*) with time for the auto-polymerized material VP-K after exposure to water in darkness (solid dots) and xenon light (open dots). The uniform standard
deviation of b* averaged + 0.3 for all measurements of the specimens exposed to water in
darkness. For the specimen exposed to water and light the uniform standard deviation of b*
averaged + 0.2 below 240 h, at 720 h and 1440 h + 0.5.
storage in the dark. These increased
values of contrast ratios reflect increasing opacity.
The compiled data from the acceptability judgement showed that 50% of
the observers considered that sample
pairs were unacceptable when the color
difference AE*ab was approximately
3.3.

changes. These may later be compared

with the changes in appearance seen in
clinical situations.
The test decribed had the ability to
discriminate between the various products. Similar studies on the esthetic
appearance of the same materials after
extended use have as yet not been performed. The time studied (2 months)
would probably correspond to several
years of clinical use, which also would

Discussion
Poor color stability of materials used
where esthetics are important, is of
concern for both the patient and dentist. Perfect occlusion and gingival adaptation of the metal framework become of minor interest when the esthetics of restorations start to fail.
Changing a discolored filling is a fairly
simple matter, whereas extensive repair of veneers seldom gives satisfactory results. Several reports (8, 9, 11,
12) point to tfae need of improved
measures by the profession to be able
to predict the clinical color stability of
the materials.
Literature on color science (21) and
color measure standardization (16, 17),
however, clearly indicates that there
are methodological problems inherent
in the evaluation of color changes. In
this context, the present study is intended as a baseline study. It is necessary
to have objective criteria for color

include other kinds of stress in combination with exposure to light under wet
conditions. The in vitro test is accelerated compared to clinical light-exposure. There were marked differences in
the color stability of veneer materials at
the end of the test period. This has also
been found for restorative composite
resins by Asmussen (11), using another
test system. A n interesting finding in
the present system is the distinct difference between some of the materials already at the first registration. For example the total color difference for the
auto-polymerized material was four
times that of heat-polymerized materials already after 24 h exposure to water and xenon light. Such an immediate
difference in appearance of auto-polymerized materials presumably indicates
a real difference in composition compared to heat cured materials. The
same rapid initial change in color appearance was also found between 2 of
the light-activated materials and might
also reflect a difference in composition
of these materials.
Further analytical studies of the different materials might explain how
compositional differences influence the
color stability.
The clinical relevance of the present
findings is not self-evident. The in vitro
study clearly differentiated the materials with respect to color changes.
However, most of the changes were, in
absolute values, lower than AE*ab of 3.
In our laboratory, 10 yrs experience

1 O0

r--'l

''

90

d
,~
rr
I(o
<
rr
I--

80i

70

240

480

720

960

1200

1440

TIME, h

Fig. 8. Contrast ratio (CR) with time for the auto-polymerized material VP-K after exposure
to water in darkness (solid dots) and xenon light (open dots). The uniform standard deviation of CR averaged + 0.25 for all measurements of the specimens exposed to water in darkness, and + 0.3 for the specimens exposed to water and light.

C o l o r stability o f v e n e e r s

with visual observation of color

changes in similar test specimens indicate that color differences with corresponding AE*ab-values lower than approximately 3.3 are acceptable. Thus,
the clear-cut m e a s u r e d differences in
color stability n e e d not be of a magnitude which would be unacceptable in a
clinical situation. H o w e v e r , this can
only be ascertained in controlled clinical trials o v e r extended periods.
Acceptability studies of dental restorative materials have previously b e e n
published, and various color difference
formulas have b e e n used in these investigations. H o w e v e r , it can be concluded
that there has b e e n p o o r a g r e e m e n t between the studies (4, 6). A basic study
on scaling of small color differences using the C I E L A B color difference formula (AE*ab) concluded that no significant differences were found between
.perceptibility j u d g e m e n t s and acceptability j u d g e m e n t s (23). The investigation showed the average total C I E L A B
color difference for 50% perceptibility
and acceptability to be approximately
one unit. H o w e v e r , the perceptibility
of a color difference is strictly a visual
j u d g e m e n t , whereas the acceptability
considers the intended application (21).
In clinical dentistry a larger acceptable
difference than a perceptible difference
is expected and also established by the
subjective judgements. The acceptability value of 3.3 also corresponds to the
term "fair" in the evaluation procedure
1 of A A T C C (The A m e r i c a n Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists)
for color change of textile materials
(19).

Acknowledgements - The authors thank Ms.

Hanne Wellendorf for her skilful assistance.

References
1. Hofmann. M. Erfahrungen mit kunststoffverkleideten Kronen- und Briickenkonstruktionen. Dtsch zahniirztl Z
1958: 13: 502-514.
2. Sendtner K. Das Palapont in der zahngrztlichen Praxis. Berlinische Verlagsanstalt 1943.
3. Leinfelder KF, Sluder TB, Sockwell
CL, Strickland WD, Wall JT. Clinical
evaluation of composite resins as anterior and posterior restorative materials.
J Prosthet Dent 1975: 33: 407416.
4. Cook WD, Chong MP. Colour stability
and visual perception of dimethacrylate
based dental composite resins. Biomaterials" 1985: 6: 257-264.
5. Staffanou RS, Hembree Jr JH, Rivers
JA, Myers ML, Kilgore JL. Leakage
study of three esthetic veneering materials. J Prosthet Dent 1985: 54: 204-206.
6. Dennison JB, Powers JM, Koran A.
Color of dental restorative resins. J
Dent Res 1978: 57: 557-562.
7. Powers JM, Dennison JB, Lepeak JP.
Parameters that affect the color of direct restorative resins. J Dent Res 1978:
57: 876-880.
8. Powers JM, Dennison JB, Koran A.
Color stability of restorative resins under accelerated aging. J Dent Res 1978:
57: 964-970.
9. Asmussen E. An accelerated test for
color stability of restorative resins. Acta
Odontol Scand 1981: 39: 329-332.
10.' Yeh CL, Powers JM, Miyagawa Y.
Color of selected shades of composites
by reflection spectrophotometry. J Dent
Res 1982: 61: 1176-1179.

251

11. Asmussen E. Factors affecting the color

stability of restorative resins. Acta
Odontol Scand 1983: 41: 11-18.
12. Wozniak WT, Fan PL, McGill S, Moser
JB, Stanford JW. Color comparisons of
composite resins of various shade designations. Dent Mater 1985: 1: 121-123.
13. Bureau central de la CIE. Colorimetry.
Paris. Publication No. 15 (E-1.3.1.),
1971: 11.
14. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 4892 (1981). Plastics Methods of exposure to laboratory light
sources.
15. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 7491 (1985). Dental materials - Determination of colour stability of dental polymeric materials.
16. Bureau central de la CIE. Colorimetry.
Paris. Publication No. 15 (E-1.3.1.),
1971: 17.
17. Bureau central de la CIE. Recommendations on uniform color spaces - colordifference equations psychometric color
terms. Paris. Supplement No. 2 to CIE
Publication No. 15 (E-1.3.1.) 1971/(TC1.3.) 1978: 9-12.
18. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia: A S T M Standards,
1975: 20: 86-88.
19. Hunter RS. The measurement of appearance. New York: Wiley, 1975:
77-80, 151-152, 225, 334.
20. Bureau central de la CIE. Colorimetry.
Paris. Publication No. 15 (E-1.3.1.),
1971: 15.
21. Wyszecki G, Stiles WS. Color science.
Concepts and methods, Quantitative
data and formulae. New York: Wiley,
1982: 168, 223.
22. Hunter RS. The measurement of appearance. New York: Wiley, 1975: 332.
23. Kuehni RG, Marcus RT. An experiment in visual scaling of small color differences. Color 1979: 4: 83-91.