Dental Materials Journal 2015; 34(3): 310–314

Light transmittance by a multi-coloured zirconia material

Kazuhiko UEDA1,2, Jan-Frederik GÜTH2, Kurt ERDELT2, Michael STIMMELMAYR2, Heinrich KAPPERT2
and Florian BEUER2,3

1
Comprehensive Dental Care, Oral Implant Center, Niigata Hospital, Nippon Dental University, 1-8 Hamaura-cho, Chuo-ku, Niigata 951-8580,
Japan
2
Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School of the Ludwig- Maximilian University of Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336 München, Germany.
3
Paciic Dental Institute, 12750 SW 68th Ave, Portland, OR 97223, USA
Corresponding author, Kazuhiko UEDA; E-mail: [email protected]

Full-contour zirconia restorations are gaining in popularity. Highly translucent zirconia materials and multi-coloured zirconia blocks
might help to overcome the aesthetic drawbacks of traditional zirconia. This study evaluated the transmittance of visible light

BL) of a multi-coloured zirconia block (KATANA™ Zirconia Multi-Layered Disc (ML)) using a spectrophotometer. Forty specimens
(400–700 nm) through the four different layers (Enamel Layer EL, Transition Layer 1 TL1, Transition Layer 2 TL2, Body Layer

(thickness of 1±0.05 mm) from each layer were examined and statistically evaluated at a conidence-level of 5%. Light transmittance
was expressed as a percentage of the through-passing light. The following mean values (SD) were found: EL 32.8% (1.5), TL1 31.2%
(1.3), TL2 25.4% (1.3) and BL 21.7% (1.1). Signiicant differences were found between all groups (ANOVA, Student-Newman-Keuls).
This multi-coloured zirconia block showed four layers with different light transmittance capabilities. It might therefore be useful for
enhancing the aesthetic appearance of full-contour zirconia restorations made from this material.

Keywords: Zirconia, Full contour, Light-transmittance, Translucency

of all reconstructions after 3 years12) and 15% of all

INTRODUCTION
restorations after 5 years17). One approach to overcome

ixed dental prostheses (FDPs) without veneering

Metal-ceramic restorations have been widely used in chipping is to produce full-contour monolithic zirconia
dentistry due to their capacity to provide high strength,

zirconia restorations is the signiicantly reduced

longevity and acceptable aesthetics1). However, to porcelain. The major clinical advantage of monolithic

coloured materials show signiicant advantages.

achieve close-to-nature dental restorations, tooth-
material thickness in comparison to veneered
Therefore, the increased aesthetic requirements and restorations or other monolithic ceramics18,19). Moreover,

aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/

demands of patients and dental professionals have straightforward and fast fabrication by computer-
resulted in the development of a large variety of new
metal free restorations1,2). All-ceramic materials CAM) technology might increase the use of monolithic
have been advocated as the better choice due to reconstructions. As a direct result, the processing costs
their excellent biocompatibility and superior optical of these monolithic zirconia restorations are reduced
properties3,4). Compared to metal-ceramics these metal compared to porcelain-veneered zirconia substructures20).
free restorations perform better in terms of matching The mechanical properties of zirconia are considered
the appearance of natural teeth5). Among a variety of favourable for dental ceramics21,22): however their optical
core materials, partially stabilized zirconia has proven behaviour is still considered controversial. Zirconia
to offer enhanced mechanical properties compared to all is a monochromatic and opaque material, which is a
other all-ceramic materials due to its transformation clinical drawback in terms of aesthetics20). The aesthetic
toughening mechanism6-9). appearance of a restoration and a natural tooth is
However, some clinical drawbacks have also been dependent on the optical properties of the hard tissues,
described for zirconia substructures. The typical clinical the restorative material and the interaction between
failure pattern of zirconia-based restorations is fracture them23). Therefore the translucency of a material is an
of the veneering material (chipping). While few fractures important factor for the clinical selection of restorative

From the aesthetic aspect it is crucial to select a

of zirconia frameworks have been reported, chipping of materials.

Zirconia shows a lexural strength of 1,000 MPa12-14)

veneering porcelain is a more frequent complication10,11).
material that closely matches the natural translucency

MPa15). Thus, complication rates of 15% of the veneering

while the typical veneering porcelains exhibit 50–120 and grey-scale of the tooth. One investigation tested the

and observed signiicant differences in translucency

contrast ratios of differently shaded zirconia materials
porcelain have been reported after 2 years16). In a
prospective clinical, trial chipping was observed in 13% between shade intensities24). The translucency or
contrast ratio/translucency of various zirconia materials
in terms of aesthetic properties has been examined in
Color igures can be viewed in the online issue, which is avail-

Received Sep 9, 2014: Accepted Dec 25, 2014

able at J-STAGE.

doi:10.4012/dmj.2014-238 JOI JST.JSTAGE/dmj/2014-238

 Dent Mater J 2015; 34(3): 310–314 311

several studies24-26). Knowledge about the translucency

of aesthetic restorative materials enables clinicians to
better match the optical adjustment of a monolithic
restoration to the individual clinical situation.

(KATANA™ Zirconia Multi-Layered Disc (ML),

Recently a multicoloured zirconia material

Noritake Dental Supply Co., Ltd., Miyoshi, Japan)

has been introduced for more aesthetic all-ceramic
restorations than conventional full-contour zirconia
restorations offer. ML is a gradational multilayered

enamel, 15% in the irst gradation layer, 15% in the

zirconia disc with four layers of colour (35% in the
Fig. 1 Structure of the multi-colored zirconia disc and
second gradation layer and 35% in the dentin) trying origin of the evaluated specimens.
to imitate the appearance of layered porcelain in
a full-contour monolithic restoration (unpublished
information according to the manufacturer). According
to the manufacturer, full-contour zirconia restorations in the thickness of each specimen of no more than 1
with better aesthetics compared to monochromatic ±0.05 mm was obtained.
restorations can be achieved immediately just by

available in three shades: A-Light (A1.5–2), A-Dark

polishing after sintering. These layered discs are Measurement of light transmittance

spectrophotometer (Lambda 35 Perkin Elmer, Perkin

Light transmittance was measured using a

Elmer Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). For total transmittance

(A2.5–3) and B-Light (B1.5–2). However, there are
currently no studies about the translucency/light
transmittance of this gradational multilayered zirconia. measurements, the samples were placed at the entrance
The aim of this study was to evaluate the port of the integrating sphere. In order to complete the
translucency/light transmittance by each layer of integrating sphere, a barium sulphate standard was
the gradational multilayered zirconia. The working used. The intensity of the monochromatic light (I0),
hypothesis is that in a gradational multilayered and the light (I) transmitted through the specimen was
zirconia blank each layer will show a different light measured continuously at 2 nm intervals at visible light

coeficients tc [%] were calculated by the software of the

transmittance. wavelengths (λ) from 400 to 700 nm. The transmittance

spectrophotometer for each wavelength according to the

MATERIALS AND METHODS
equation: I/I0=tcX. The overall light transmittance (%T)

discs (KATANA™ Zirconia Multi-Layered Disc (ML),

In this study, semi-sintered multi-layered zirconia for each material was calculated as the integration (tc
(λ) dλ [10−5]) using all tc values for wavelengths from
Noritake Dental Supply Co., Ltd.) in “A light” colour
(corresponds to VITA shade A1.5–2) were applied. ML
400 to 700 nm. To analyze the light transmittance, the
overall light transmittance value of each material was
is comprised of four different laminating colours. Each divided by the overall light transmittance value with no
disc is divided into four layers: the enamel layer (EL), specimen in the spectrophotometer to determine overall-
transition layer 1 (TL1), transition layer 2 (TL2) and the light transmittance as a %-value. The transmittance
body layer (BL). The discs were 98.5 mm in diameter was given as a value between 100% (transparent) and

Descriptive statistics (mean, SD) were calculated

and exhibited a thickness of 18 mm. After sectioning, 0% (opaque).

and data were compared with one-way ANOVA and a

each of the different layers was evaluated.

signiicance was set at 5%.

Production of the specimens post-hoc test (Student-Newman-Keuls). The level of

From the transmittance spectra the L* a* b* values

Semi-sintered zirconia discs were sectioned using an

(Dia-Scheiben Gips, Komet Dental Gebr Brasseler

electric laboratory hand piece with a diamond wheel

at 6,500 K (representing 10° Observer at D65 standard

for exemplary samples from each layer were calculated

mm (Fig. 1). A total of 160 disc-shaped (diameter 20 mm)

GmbH & Co. KG, Lemgo, Germany) to a thickness of 2
neutral daylight).
specimens from each of the 4 layers were prepared (n=40

to full density in a sintering furnace (M2 Plus, Thermo-

per layer). After sectioning, the specimens were sintered RESULTS
For each layer one mean value (and SD) was calculated
from 40 specimens. The following mean values (SD)
Star, Aachen, Germany) at a temperature of 1,500ºC
for 2 h. Subsequently, all specimens were ground and

Struers, Ballerup, Denmark) under controlled conditions (1.3) and BL 21.7% (1.1) (Fig. 2). Figure 3 shows one
polished by an automatic polishing machine (Abramin, were found: EL 32.8% (1.5), TL1 31.2% (1.3), TL2 25.4%

with water application. First, polishing wheels with a

roughness of SiC P400 were used, while the inal surface The light transmittance showed signiicant
example of the transmittance spectrum for each layer.

treatment was carried out with P2400 until a variance differences between each layer (p≤0.001; one way
312 Dent Mater J 2015; 34(3): 310–314

ANOVA). The post-hoc test (Student-Newman-Keuls) for EL (66.35/0.52/19.72), for TL1 (66.70/0.85/20.72), for
exhibited differences between all four evaluated layers TL2 (61.87/1.77/23.01) and for BL (58.82/19.81/29.29).
(Table 1).

layer at 6,500 K (representing 10° Observer at D65) were

The L* a* b* values for exemplary samples from each DISCUSSION
Each layer showed a different light transmittance so the
working hypothesis can be accepted.
The enamel layer (EL) showed the highest
transmittance value (32.8%), while the body layer
(BL) exhibited the lowest light-transmittance (21.7%).
Even to the unaided eye, the multilayered pre-sintered

In accordance with Fig. 4, the visible pigmentation

zirconia blanks exhibited four layers after sintering.

conceivably inluences the light transmittance.

In this study, the multilayered zirconia blanks were
sectioned in the pre-sintered stage using an electric
laboratory hand piece with a diamond wheel in order to
obtain specimens from each layer. This means the four
Fig. 2 Overall light transmittance by each layer as a different layers were invisible in the pre-sintered blanks,

One-way ANOVA showed signiicant differences

percentage of total light transmittance [%]. as they were monochromatically similar to pre-sintered

between each layer (p≤0.001). Different letters

conventional zirconia blanks. Thus, it was impossible to

indicate signiicant differences (Student-Newman-

determine the precise boundaries of each layer during
sectioning. Even though invisible, the manufacturer
Keuls post hoc). communicated the thickness of each layer, which helped

each layer (Fig. 1). In particular, obtaining specimens

to produce reproducible specimens from the middle of

from transition layer 1 (TL1) and transition layer 2 (TL

2) was demanding due to their small dimensions. All
specimens were sectioned to a thickness of 2 mm to allow

polishing all specimens showed a deined thickness of

compensation for sinter-shrinkage. After sintering and

1±0.05 mm. The homogenous thickness and standardized

in thicknesses as a potential inluencing factor. The low

polishing procedure minimized the impact of variations

Fig. 3 Representative examples of the transmittance

Despite showing different levels of transmittance,

spectrum for each layer (EL, TL1, TL2, BL).

This is due to speciic ingredients in the Zirconia

all curves exhibit steep drops at similar wavelength.

Fig. 4
material. The overall light transmittance for each
material was calculated as the integration (tic (λ) dλ Specimens under standardized laboratory light
[10−5]) of all tc values for wavelengths from 400 to conditions: body layer (BL), transition layer 2
700 nm. (TL2), transition layer 1 (TL1), enamel layer (EL).

Table 1 The post-hoc test (Student-Newman-Keuls) shows 4 signiicantly different subgroups

Subgroups
Layers N
1 2 3 4

BL 40 21.7061 — — —

TL1 40 — 25.3956 — —

TL2 40 — — 31.1651 —

EL 40 — — — 32.2832

Signiicance — 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

 Dent Mater J 2015; 34(3): 310–314 313

standard deviation shows the high reproducibility of the between the light and intense shades (p=0.030) and

There was no signiicant difference between the light

experimental set-up. between the medium and intense shades (p<0.0001).
Glass-ceramic materials and some polymers show

levels were signiicantly different between all the layers

higher transmittance than Zirconia19,20,27,28). A prior and medium shades (p=0.15). Although translucency-

produced on eight different CAD/CAM systems (LAVA

study investigated the translucency of zirconia copings

Frame 0.3 and 0.5; 3M ESPE, IPS e.max ZirCAD; Ivoclar

in this study, our results are still in partial agreement

Vivadent AG, VITA YZ; VITA Zahnfabrik, Procera All

with their results24). So, the difference between the mean

Zircon; Nobel Biocare AB, Digizon; Amman Girrbach

values of EL and TL1 was much less than between TL1

AG, DC Zircon; DCS Dental AG, Cercon Base; DeguDent

and TL2, as well as between TL2 and BL. That difference

GmbH). Here, a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS

might be due to a greater discrepancy or to alterations in

e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent AG) served as a control the curves in Fig. 3) indicates, that the composition of all
pigmentation. The almost similar progression (shapes of

ceramic group was signiicantly higher compared to all

group20). The translucency of the lithium disilicate glass- layers seem to be comparable. The effect of pigmentation

of the other zirconia groups (p=0.001). Furthermore, TL2, TL1 and EL. From BL towards EL the L*-values
can be seen best in the exemplary L*a*b* values for BL,

all zirconia copings demonstrated different levels increase, the a*- and b*-values decrease. This means

shift towards “red” and “yellow”, the less transparent

of light transmittance. This means that the present the pigmentation causes a decrease in lightness, and a
study results are in accordance with previous studies.
However, it has to be taken into account that the the specimen gets.
transmittance of these materials was the same within As there is a recognizable trend towards monolithic

are fabricated from these materials some modiications

the material, which was used. If monolithic restorations restorations even in anterior regions, the translucency
of a material has become an even more important
such as layering or colouring are necessary to achieve factor for the clinical selection of aesthetic restorative
a natural appearance of the restoration. The four-layer materials. The aesthetic value of a ceramic crown is

signiicant beneit compared to the one-layer materials.

approach of the material tested in this study exhibits a based on its ability to match the natural tooth. Key

Different levels of transmittance help to imitate the

optical factors that permit a pleasing harmony are

From the results of this study, the authors found

colour, surface texture, and translucency30).
natural appearance and might improve the aesthetic
results of monolithic restorations. A computer-aided that ML also has 4 different colours in conjunction with
colour and transmittance measurement system might 4 different translucency levels. Knowledge about the
help to virtually place the restoration in the block to degree of translucency is important when monolithic
achieve the best possible result in the future. restorations from this ML-block are fabricated for
The difference of transmittance between the layers anterior teeth, as precise positioning of the restoration in
of the material might cause slight differences in the accordance with the individual clinical situation within
physical properties of the layers. However, zirconia the disc is required. If the abutment colour is dark and
is considered one of the most stable and physically will be masked by the restoration, the restoration should
resistant materials used in dentistry, and therefore be placed closer to the bottom of the blank. However, as

translucency will inluence the clinical performance

the authors do not assume, that the slight change in the difference between EL and TL1 is much less than
the difference between TL2 and BL, the positioning

decisive for the inal appearance of the restoration than

of restorations fabricated from different layers of the of a restoration in the bottom-level seems to be more
material. This makes it possible to virtually place and

Further clinical studies are necessary to determine

tilt the restoration within the block, due to the desired its position within the top of the blank.
appearance of the later restoration. This makes the
aesthetic outcome much more predictable and natural, the effect of the optical properties of multilayered
as when a mono-colored block is used. zirconia crowns on the aesthetic appearance of
As mentioned before, the thickness of a transparent monolithic zirconia crowns.
material is known to be a major factor in its
translucency20). In this context, the thickness and colour CONCLUSIONS
of a material also affect the possible polymerization of
composite cements. Ilie et al. evaluated the amount of Within the limitations of this study the following

ceramics of varying thicknesses29). From their results,

blue light passing through differently shaded zirconia conclusions can be drawn:
1. All four layers of the evaluated zirconia blank
the authors recommended the use of dual-cure luting- showed different light transmittance values.
cements for restorations thicker than 1.5 mm from 2. Light transmittance values were below those of

3. The pigmentation of the zirconia inluenced the

highly translucent zirconia and 0.5 mm from poorly glass-ceramic materials.
translucent zirconia.
Spyropoulou et al. investigated the translucency light transmittance.

zirconia materials (Procera, Nobel Biocare AB)24). Their

of three differently shaded (light, medium, intense)

results indicated a signiicant difference in translucency

314 Dent Mater J 2015; 34(3): 310–314

16) Fischer J, Stawarczyk B, Hammerle CH. Flexural strength of

REFERENCES veneering ceramics for zirconia. J Dent 2008; 36: 316-321.
1) Raptis NV, Michalakis KX, Hirayama H. Optical behavior of 17) Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Luthy H, Hammerle
current ceramic systems. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for
2006; 26: 31-41. posterior ixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20:
2) Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials
18) Rinke S, Fischer C. Range of indications for translucent
383-388.

review. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 98: 389-404. zirconia modiications: clinical and technical aspects.
and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic

Quintessence Int 2013; 44: 557-566.

restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 297-307. 19) Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Gueth JF, Edelhoff D, Naumann
3) Rosenblum MA, Schulman A. A review of all-ceramic

Dent Mater 2012; 28: 449-456.

M. In vitro performance of full-contour zirconia single crowns.
century. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85: 61-66.
4) McLean JW. Evolution of dental ceramics in the twentieth

5) Devigus A, Lombardi G. Shading Vita In-ceram YZ 20) Baldissara P, Llukacej A, Ciocca L, Valandro FL, Scotti R.
substructures: inluence on value and chroma, part II. Int J Translucency of zirconia copings made with different CAD/
Comput Dent 2004; 7: 379-388. CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104: 6-12.
6) Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, 21) Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental
applications. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 299-307.
ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. 22) Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical
fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-

Dent Mater 2004; 20: 449-456. evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J 2011; 56 Suppl 1:
7) Hannink RHJ, Kelly PM, Muddle BC. Transformation
23) Pecho OE, Ghinea R, Ionescu AM, Cardona Jde L, Paravina
84-96.

2000; 83: 461-487. RD, Perez Mdel M. Color and translucency of zirconia
toughening in zirconia-containing ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc

8) Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. ceramics, human dentine and bovine dentine. J Dent 2012;
Biomaterials 1999; 20: 1-25.
24) Spyropoulou PE, Giroux EC, Razzoog ME, Duff RE.
40 Suppl 2: e34-40.
9) Teixeira EC, Piascik JR, Stoner BR, Thompson JY. Dynamic
Translucency of shaded zirconia core material. J Prosthet
materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007; 18: 1219-1224. Dent 2011; 105: 304-307.
fatigue and strength characterization of three ceramic

10) Heintze SD, Rousson V. Survival of zirconia- and metal- 25) Tsukuma K, Kubota Y, Tsukdate T. Thermal and mechanical
supported ixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. Int J properties of Y2O3-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals.
Prosthodont 2010; 23: 493-502. In: Clausen N, Ruehle M, eds. Science and technology of
11) Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Gernet W, Edelhoff D, Guh JF, zirconia II. Columbus, OH: The American Ceramic Society,
Naumann M. Prospective study of zirconia-based restorations:
26) Kelly JR, Nishimura I, Campbell SD. Ceramics in dentistry:
184: 382-390.
3-year clinical results. Quintessence Int 2010; 41: 631-637.
12) Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F, Lüthy H, Gauckler LJ, Schärer historical roots and current perspectives. J Prosthet Dent
P, Franz Hämmerle CH. Prospective clinical study of 1996; 75: 18-32.
zirconia posterior ixed partial dentures: 3-year follow-up. 27) Guth JF, Zuch T, Zwinge S, Engels J, Stimmelmayr M,
Quintessence Int 2006; 37: 685-693. Edelhoff D. Optical properties of manually and CAD/CAM-
13) Edelhoff D, Florian B, Florian W, Johnen C. HIP zirconia fabricated polymers. Dent Mater J 2013; 32: 865-871.
ixed partial dentures—clinical results after 3 years of clinical 28) Heffernan MJ, Aquilino SA, Diaz-Arnold AM, Haselton DR,
service. Quintessence Int 2008; 39: 459-471. Stanford CM, Vargas MA. Relative translucency of six all-
14) Filser F, Kocher P, Weibel F, Luthy H, Scharer P, Gauckler ceramic systems. Part I: core materials. J Prosthet Dent
2002; 88: 4-9.
fabricated by direct ceramic machining (DCM). Int J Comput 29) Ilie N, Stawarczyk B. Quantiication of the amount of light
LJ. Reliability and strength of all-ceramic dental restorations

Dent 2001; 4: 89-106.

thickness, and curing conditions. J Dent 2014; 42: 684-690.
passing through zirconia: the effect of material shade,
15) Fischer J, Stawarczyk B. Compatibility of machined Ce-TZP/
Al2O3 nanocomposite and a veneering ceramic. Dent Mater 30) Lee YK, Cha HS, Ahn JS. Layered color of all-ceramic core
2007; 23: 1500-1505. and veneer ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97: 279-286.