Fluorescence compatibility of various resin composites on cervical restorations: An in-vitro evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the fluorescence compatibility of five resin composite materials in cervical restorations using multiple assessment techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty extracted A2 shade human molars were selected, and standardized Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces. The cavities were restored using five resin composite materials (n = 8). Fluorescence images were obtained using three assessment techniques based on fluorescence illumination: Tech-I (QrayPen C, 405 nm), Tech-II (Valo X with DSLR camera, 395-415 nm), and Tech-III (Ashur device with DSLR camera, 405 nm). Fluorescence differences (ΔE) were calculated using the CIEDE2000 formula. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, Tukey post-hoc test, and Pearson correlation (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were observed among composite materials in all techniques (p < 0.001). Filtek Z250XT showed the lowest ΔE values (Tech-I: 3.83 ± 1.39, Tech-II: 3.60 ± 1.11, Tech-III: 3.41 ± 0.69), indicating the best fluorescence compatibility. Conversely, Estelite Asteria exhibited the highest ΔE values (Tech-I: 15.53 ± 3.94, Tech-II: 23.79 ± 2.72, Tech-III: 14.15 ± 2.46). Strong positive correlations were found among the techniques (Tech-I vs. Tech-II: r = 0.707; Tech-I vs. Tech-III: r = 0.774; Tech-II vs. Tech-III: r = 0.880; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The fluorescence compatibility of resin composite materials varies significantly depending on the material type. The Filtek Z250XT demonstrated the closest fluorescence compatibility to natural tooth structure. The assessment techniques showed strong agreement under standardized conditions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding the fluorescence behavior of composite materials may guide clinicians in selecting appropriate materials for improved esthetic outcomes and clinical performance.