Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknesses

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Tejada-Casado, Maria
Publication Date: 2024
Other Authors: Duveiller, Vincent, Ghinea, Razvan, Gautheron, Arthur, Clerc, Raphaël, Salomon, Jean-Pierre [UNESP], Pérez, María del Mar, Hébert, Mathieu, Herrera, Luis Javier
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Download full: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.013
https://hdl.handle.net/11449/298280
Summary: Objective: To assess the prediction accuracy of recent optical and numerical models for the spectral reflectance and color of monolithic samples of dental materials with different thicknesses. Methods: Samples of dental resin composites of Aura Easy Flow (Ae1, Ae3 and Ae4 shades) and Estelite Universal Flow Super Low (A1, A2, A3, A3.5, A4 and A5 shades) with thicknesses between 0.3 and 1.8 mm, as well as Estelite Universal Flow Medium (A2, A3, OA2 and OA3 shades) with thicknesses between 0.4 and 2.0 mm, were used. Spectral reflectance and transmittance factors of all samples were measured using a X-Rite Color i7 spectrophotometer. Four analytical optical models (2 two-flux models and 2 four-flux models) and two numerical models (PCA-based and L*a*b*-based) were implemented to predict spectral reflectance of all samples and then convert them into CIE-L*a*b* color coordinates (D65 illuminant, 2°Observer). The CIEDE2000 total color difference formula (ΔE00) between predicted and measured colors, and the corresponding 50:50% acceptability and perceptibility thresholds (AT00 and PT00) were used for performance assessment. Results: The best performing optical model was the four-flux model RTE-4F-RT, with an average ΔE00 = 0.72 over all samples, 94.87% of the differences below AT00 and 65.38% below PT00. The best performing numerical model was L*a*b*-PCHIP (interpolation mode), with an average ΔE00 = 0.48, and 100% and 79.69% of the differences below AT00 and PT00, respectively. Significance: Both optical and numerical models offer comparable color prediction accuracy, offering flexibility in model choice. These results help guide decision-making on prediction methods by clarifying their strengths and limitations.
id UNSP_0279d91f81c630b23b21b6c97672415e
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/298280
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknessesColor predictionFour-fluxKubelka–MunkNumerical modelsOptical modelsPrincipal component analysisReflectance predictionObjective: To assess the prediction accuracy of recent optical and numerical models for the spectral reflectance and color of monolithic samples of dental materials with different thicknesses. Methods: Samples of dental resin composites of Aura Easy Flow (Ae1, Ae3 and Ae4 shades) and Estelite Universal Flow Super Low (A1, A2, A3, A3.5, A4 and A5 shades) with thicknesses between 0.3 and 1.8 mm, as well as Estelite Universal Flow Medium (A2, A3, OA2 and OA3 shades) with thicknesses between 0.4 and 2.0 mm, were used. Spectral reflectance and transmittance factors of all samples were measured using a X-Rite Color i7 spectrophotometer. Four analytical optical models (2 two-flux models and 2 four-flux models) and two numerical models (PCA-based and L*a*b*-based) were implemented to predict spectral reflectance of all samples and then convert them into CIE-L*a*b* color coordinates (D65 illuminant, 2°Observer). The CIEDE2000 total color difference formula (ΔE00) between predicted and measured colors, and the corresponding 50:50% acceptability and perceptibility thresholds (AT00 and PT00) were used for performance assessment. Results: The best performing optical model was the four-flux model RTE-4F-RT, with an average ΔE00 = 0.72 over all samples, 94.87% of the differences below AT00 and 65.38% below PT00. The best performing numerical model was L*a*b*-PCHIP (interpolation mode), with an average ΔE00 = 0.48, and 100% and 79.69% of the differences below AT00 and PT00, respectively. Significance: Both optical and numerical models offer comparable color prediction accuracy, offering flexibility in model choice. These results help guide decision-making on prediction methods by clarifying their strengths and limitations.Agence Nationale de la RechercheUniversité de LyonDepartment of Optics Faculty of Science University of Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva, s/n 18071Université Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne CNRS Institut d Optique Graduate School Laboratoire Hubert Curien UMR 5516Department of Physics Faculty of Sciences University of Craiova, 13 AI Cuza StreetUniv Lyon INSA-Lyon Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 UJM-Saint Etienne CNRS Inserm CREATIS UMR 5220 U1294Faculté d'Odontologie de Nancy (CHRU)Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Department Araraquara's Dental School (UNESP Brazil)OHSU Dental Biomaterials DepartmentDepartment of Computer Architecture and Computer Technology E.T.S.I.I.T. University of Granada, s/n 18071Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Department Araraquara's Dental School (UNESP Brazil)Agence Nationale de la Recherche: ANR-11-IDEX-0007Université de Lyon: ANR-11-LABX-0063University of GranadaLaboratoire Hubert Curien UMR 5516University of CraiovaU1294Faculté d'Odontologie de Nancy (CHRU)Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Dental Biomaterials DepartmentE.T.S.I.I.T. University of GranadaTejada-Casado, MariaDuveiller, VincentGhinea, RazvanGautheron, ArthurClerc, RaphaëlSalomon, Jean-Pierre [UNESP]Pérez, María del MarHébert, MathieuHerrera, Luis Javier2025-04-29T18:36:42Z2024-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article1677-1684http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.013Dental Materials, v. 40, n. 10, p. 1677-1684, 2024.0109-5641https://hdl.handle.net/11449/29828010.1016/j.dental.2024.07.0132-s2.0-85200269583Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengDental Materialsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2025-05-01T05:42:33Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/298280Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462025-05-01T05:42:33Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknesses
title Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknesses
spellingShingle Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknesses
Tejada-Casado, Maria
Color prediction
Four-flux
Kubelka–Munk
Numerical models
Optical models
Principal component analysis
Reflectance prediction
title_short Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknesses
title_full Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknesses
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknesses
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknesses
title_sort Comparative analysis of optical and numerical models for reflectance and color prediction of monolithic dental resin composites with varying thicknesses
author Tejada-Casado, Maria
author_facet Tejada-Casado, Maria
Duveiller, Vincent
Ghinea, Razvan
Gautheron, Arthur
Clerc, Raphaël
Salomon, Jean-Pierre [UNESP]
Pérez, María del Mar
Hébert, Mathieu
Herrera, Luis Javier
author_role author
author2 Duveiller, Vincent
Ghinea, Razvan
Gautheron, Arthur
Clerc, Raphaël
Salomon, Jean-Pierre [UNESP]
Pérez, María del Mar
Hébert, Mathieu
Herrera, Luis Javier
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv University of Granada
Laboratoire Hubert Curien UMR 5516
University of Craiova
U1294
Faculté d'Odontologie de Nancy (CHRU)
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
Dental Biomaterials Department
E.T.S.I.I.T. University of Granada
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Tejada-Casado, Maria
Duveiller, Vincent
Ghinea, Razvan
Gautheron, Arthur
Clerc, Raphaël
Salomon, Jean-Pierre [UNESP]
Pérez, María del Mar
Hébert, Mathieu
Herrera, Luis Javier
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Color prediction
Four-flux
Kubelka–Munk
Numerical models
Optical models
Principal component analysis
Reflectance prediction
topic Color prediction
Four-flux
Kubelka–Munk
Numerical models
Optical models
Principal component analysis
Reflectance prediction
description Objective: To assess the prediction accuracy of recent optical and numerical models for the spectral reflectance and color of monolithic samples of dental materials with different thicknesses. Methods: Samples of dental resin composites of Aura Easy Flow (Ae1, Ae3 and Ae4 shades) and Estelite Universal Flow Super Low (A1, A2, A3, A3.5, A4 and A5 shades) with thicknesses between 0.3 and 1.8 mm, as well as Estelite Universal Flow Medium (A2, A3, OA2 and OA3 shades) with thicknesses between 0.4 and 2.0 mm, were used. Spectral reflectance and transmittance factors of all samples were measured using a X-Rite Color i7 spectrophotometer. Four analytical optical models (2 two-flux models and 2 four-flux models) and two numerical models (PCA-based and L*a*b*-based) were implemented to predict spectral reflectance of all samples and then convert them into CIE-L*a*b* color coordinates (D65 illuminant, 2°Observer). The CIEDE2000 total color difference formula (ΔE00) between predicted and measured colors, and the corresponding 50:50% acceptability and perceptibility thresholds (AT00 and PT00) were used for performance assessment. Results: The best performing optical model was the four-flux model RTE-4F-RT, with an average ΔE00 = 0.72 over all samples, 94.87% of the differences below AT00 and 65.38% below PT00. The best performing numerical model was L*a*b*-PCHIP (interpolation mode), with an average ΔE00 = 0.48, and 100% and 79.69% of the differences below AT00 and PT00, respectively. Significance: Both optical and numerical models offer comparable color prediction accuracy, offering flexibility in model choice. These results help guide decision-making on prediction methods by clarifying their strengths and limitations.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-10-01
2025-04-29T18:36:42Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.013
Dental Materials, v. 40, n. 10, p. 1677-1684, 2024.
0109-5641
https://hdl.handle.net/11449/298280
10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.013
2-s2.0-85200269583
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.013
https://hdl.handle.net/11449/298280
identifier_str_mv Dental Materials, v. 40, n. 10, p. 1677-1684, 2024.
0109-5641
10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.013
2-s2.0-85200269583
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Dental Materials
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 1677-1684
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repositoriounesp@unesp.br
_version_ 1834482753171619840