Intraoral determination of the tolerance of dentists for perceptibility and acceptability of shade mismatch.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM There is little agreement in the dental literature as to how much color difference constitutes an acceptable shade mismatch or how much color difference is considered perceivable to observers. Most studies attempting to determine perceptibility and acceptability of tolerances for shade mismatches have been conducted under in vitro conditions that are not applicable to clinical scenarios. PURPOSE The goal of this study was to determine valid acceptability and perceptibility tolerances for shade mismatch in an actual clinical scenario using spectroradiometric instrumentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS A test denture was fabricated that allowed 10 maxillary left central incisors of varying shade mismatch with the right central incisor to be interchanged within the denture base. A spectroradiometer was used to determine the CIELAB coordinates and color differences (DeltaE) between the right central incisor and the interchangeable left central incisor denture teeth. The interchangeable denture teeth ranged uniformly from 1 DeltaE unit (visually undetectable) to greater than 10 DeltaE units (an obvious shade mismatch). The test denture with each of the interchangeable teeth was modeled by a subject to 28 dentists in a clinical setting. For each of the interchangeable teeth, dentist observers were asked if they could see a difference between the central incisors and, if so, whether the difference was acceptable. A Probit regression analysis was used to predict acceptability and perceptibility tolerances with 95% confidence limits. RESULTS The predicted color difference at which 50% of the dentist observers could perceive a color difference (50/50 perceptibility) was 2.6 DeltaE units. The predicted color difference at which 50% of the subjects would remake the restoration due to color mismatch (clinically unacceptable color match) was 5.5 DeltaE. Acceptability and perceptibility color tolerances at the 50/50 level were significantly different (P<.05), as their 95% confidence limits did not overlap. CONCLUSIONS Tolerances for perceptibility were significantly lower than tolerances for acceptability for shade mismatch between 2 denture teeth.

[1]  R. J. Goodkind,et al.  The conversion of Chromascan designations to CIE tristimulus values. , 1982, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  R Lakowski,et al.  Instrumental colour measurement of vital and extracted human teeth. , 1981, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[3]  R. Goldstein,et al.  Survey of patient attitudes toward current esthetic procedures. , 1984, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  William M. Johnston,et al.  Color acceptance of direct dental restorative materials by human observers , 2000 .

[5]  W M Johnston,et al.  Performance Assessment of Colorimetric Devices on Dental Porcelains , 1989, Journal of dental research.

[6]  S. Hillis,et al.  Clinical assessment of high-strength all-ceramic crowns. , 2000, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  P. Milleding,et al.  Two years of clinical experience with Procera titanium crowns. , 1998, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[8]  W D Culpepper,et al.  A comparative study of shade-matching procedures. , 1970, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  S R Okubo,et al.  Evaluation of visual and instrument shade matching. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  C. Hämmerle,et al.  Visual and Spectrophotometric Shade Analysis of Human Teeth , 2002, Journal of dental research.

[11]  W M Johnston,et al.  Assessment of Appearance Match by Visual Observation and Clinical Colorimetry , 1989, Journal of dental research.

[12]  J J ten Bosch,et al.  Tooth Color and Reflectance as Related to Light Scattering and Enamel Hardness , 1995, Journal of dental research.

[13]  Rolf G. Kuehni,et al.  An Experiment in Visual Scaling of Small Color Differences* , 1979, Color Research &amp; Application.

[14]  T P van der Burgt,et al.  A comparison of new and conventional methods for quantification of tooth color. , 1990, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  Ihab A Hammad,et al.  Intrarater repeatability of shade selections with two shade guides. , 2003, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  I. E. Ruyter,et al.  Color stability of dental composite resin materials for crown and bridge veneers. , 1987, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[17]  B. Duval Commission internationale de l’éclairage (CIE) , 2001, Optique Photonique.

[18]  William M Johnston,et al.  Variation in color between intended matched shade and fabricated shade of dental porcelain. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  M. Andersson,et al.  A longitudinal clinical study of Procera ceramic-veneered titanium copings. , 1999, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[20]  R. D. Douglas,et al.  Acceptability of shade differences in metal ceramic crowns. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  R R Seghi,et al.  Visual and Instrumental Colorimetric Assessments of Small Color Differences on Translucent Dental Porcelain , 1989, Journal of dental research.

[22]  R. J. Goodkind,et al.  A comparison of Chromascan and spectrophotometric color measurements of 100 natural teeth. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[23]  H. Hemmendinger,et al.  Color distribution of three regions of extracted human teeth. , 1997, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.