ANALYSIS OF CIELAB VALUES AND COLOR DIFFERENCES OF TWO DIFFERENT SHADE GUIDES USED IN DENTISTRY

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to compare the color parameters of two different dental shade guides from local and international manufacturers (Eray Deluxe and Vita Classical). Method: A total of 320 shade samples from 10 shade guides of each brand (n=10) were evaluated. Color measurements were performed under standard lighting conditions using a spectrophotometer. Each shade sample was measured six times, and the L*, a*, and b* values were recorded in the CIELAB color space. Color differences were calculated using the CIEDE2000 (ΔE₀₀) formula. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, independent samples t-test, and Mann-Whitney U test (α=0.05). Results: The ΔE₀₀ values of the Eray Deluxe shade guide were significantly higher in all color groups compared to the Vita Classical guide (p < 0.001). The largest difference was observed in the D color group, while the smallest difference was found in the A color tones. The L* values of the Eray shade guide were higher in the D color group, while the a* values were generally lower (p < 0.05). On the b* axis, the Eray shade guide exhibited more yellowish tones. Significant ΔE₀₀ differences were detected between the two shade guides in the most commonly selected shades (A1, A2, A3, B1, and B2). Conclusions: Neither shade guide perfectly matched the target colors, but the Vita Classical guide showed lower ΔE₀₀ values, indicating a closer match to the target shades. In clinical practice, differences between shade guides should be considered.

Keywords

• Color Mismatch
• Dental Technician
• Optical Properties
• Pigment Variation
• Spectrophotometry

Diş Hekimliğinde Kullanılan İki Farklı Renk Skalasının CIELAB Değerleri ve Renk Farklılıklarının Analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, yerel ve uluslararası üreticilere ait iki farklı renk skalasının (Eray Deluxe ve Vita Classical) renk parametrelerini karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntem: Çalışmada, her iki markaya ait 10 adet renk skalası (n=10) kullanılarak toplam 320 renk örneği değerlendirildi. Renk ölçümleri, standart ışık koşulları altında bir spektrofotometre ile gerçekleştirildi. Her bir renk numunesinden altı ölçüm alındı ve CIELAB renk uzayında L*, a* ve b* değerleri kaydedildi. Renk farklılıkları, CIEDE2000 (ΔE₀₀) formülü kullanılarak hesaplandı. İstatistiksel analizler Kolmogorov-Smirnov testi, bağımsız örneklem t-testi ve Mann-Whitney U testi ile yapıldı (α=0,05). Bulgular: Eray Deluxe renk skalasının ΔE₀₀ değerleri, tüm renk gruplarında Vita Classical’a kıyasla anlamlı derecede daha yüksek bulundu (p < 0,001). En büyük fark D renk grubunda gözlenirken, en düşük fark A renk tonlarında saptandı. Eray Deluxe renk skalasının L* değerleri D renk grubunda daha yüksek, a* değerleri ise genel olarak daha düşük bulundu (p < 0,05). b* ekseninde Eray Deluxe renk skalasının daha sarı tonlara sahip olduğu belirlendi. Klinik olarak en sık kullanılan renk tonlarında (A1, A2, A3, B1 ve B2) her iki renk skalası arasında anlamlı ΔE₀₀ farkları tespit edildi. Sonuçlar: Her iki renk skalasının da hedef renklere tam uyumlu olmadığı, ancak Vita Classical’ın daha düşük ΔE₀₀ değerleriyle hedef renge daha yakın olduğu belirlendi. Klinik pratikte, renk seçiminde kullanılan skalalar arasındaki farklılıklar göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

Keywords

• Diş Teknisyeni
• Optik Özellikler
• Pigment Varyasyonu
• Renk Uyumsuzluğu
• Spektrofotometri

References

1. 1. Cocking C, Cevirgen E, Helling S, Oswald M, Corcodel N, Rammelsberg P, et al. Colour compatibility between teeth and dental shade guides in Quinquagenarians and Septuagenarians. J Oral Rehabil. 2009; 36: 848-55.
2. 2. Gómez-Polo C, Martín-Casado AM, Montero J. Fifteen ceramic gingival samples: a proposed gingival shade guide. J Dent. 2023; 138: 104648.
3. 3. Vohra M, Shenoy A. In vitro evaluation of accuracy and reliability of tooth shade selection using different digital instruments. Cureus. 2024; 16(1).
4. 4. Sengez G, Dörter C. Estetik diş hekimliğinde renk seçimi. Selcuk Dent J. 2019; 6: 213-20.
5. 5. Tejada-Casado M, Herrera LJ, Carrillo-Perez F, Ruiz-López J, Ghinea RI, Pérez MM. Exploring the CIEDE2000 thresholds for lightness, chroma, and hue differences in dentistry. J Dent. 2024; 150: 105327.
6. 6. Chu SJ, Trushkowsky RD, Paravina RD. Dental color matching instruments and systems. Review of clinical and research aspects. J Dent. 2010; 38: E2-16.
7. 7. Revilla-León M, Sorensen JA, Nelson LY, Gamborena I, Yeh YM, Özcan M. Effect of fluorescent and nonfluorescent glaze pastes on lithium disilicate pressed ceramic color at different thicknesses. J Prosthetic Dent. 2021; 125: 932-9.
8. 8. Wittich FK, Cebula M, Effenberger S, Schoppmeier CM, Schwendicke F, Barbe AG, et al. Masking efficacy of bleaching and/or resin infiltration of fluorotic spots on anterior teeth-a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2024: 105276.

9. 9. Paravina RD, Ghinea R, Herrera LJ, Bona AD, Igiel C, Linninger M, et al. Color difference thresholds in dentistry. J Esthetic Restorative Dent. 2015; 27: S1-9.
10. 10. O'Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection: Quintessence Chicago; 2002; 25-38.
11. 11. Johnston W, Kao E. Assessment of appearance match by visual observation and clinical colorimetry. J Dent Res. 1989; 68: 819-22.
12. 12. Ruyter I, Nilner K, Möller B. Color stability of dental composite resin materials for crown and bridge veneers. Dent Mater. 1987; 3: 246-51.
13. 13. Hein S, Nold J, Masannek M, Westland S, Spies BC, Wrbas KT. Evaluating percent correct shade identification: a practical approach to intraoral scanner and shade device performance. Clin Oral Investig. 2025; 29: 39.
14. 14. Lee JH, Kim HK. A comparative study of shade-matching performance using intraoral scanner, spectrophotometer, and visual assessment. Sci Rep. 2024; 14: 23640.
15. 15. Menini M, Rivolta L, Manauta J, Nuvina M, Kovacs-Vajna ZM, Pesce P. Dental color-matching ability: Comparison between visual determination and technology. Dent J. 2024; 12: 284.
16. 16. Lagouvardos PE, Fougia AG, Diamantopoulou SA, Polyzois GL. Repeatability and interdevice reliability of two portable color selection devices in matching and measuring tooth color. J Prosthetic Dent. 2009; 101: 40-5.
17. 17. Öngül D, Şermet B, Balkaya MC. Visual and instrumental evaluation of color match ability of 2 shade guides on a ceramic system. J Prosthetic Dent. 2012; 108: 9-14.
18. 18. Kim-Pusateri S, Brewer JD, Dunford RG, Wee AG. In vitro model to evaluate reliability and accuracy of a dental shade-matching instrument. J Prosthetic Dent. 2007; 98: 353-8.
19. 19. Saraç Ş, Saraç D, Yüzbaşıoğlu E. Üç farklı renk skalasının renk farklılıkları yönünden kolorimetrik olarak incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2006; 23: 85-90.
20. 20. Al-Zordk W, Saker S. Impact of sintering procedure and clinical adjustment on color stability and translucency of translucent zirconia. J Prosthetic Dent. 2020; 124: 788. E1-9.
21. 21. Rutkūnas V, Dirsė J, Bilius V. Accuracy of an intraoral digital scanner in tooth color determination. J Prosthetic Dent. 2020; 123: 322-9.
22. 22. Sharma G, Wu W, Dalal EN. The CIEDE2000 color‐difference formula: Implementation notes, supplementary test data, and mathematical observations. Color Research & Application: Endorsed by Inter‐Society Color Council, The Colour Group (Great Britain), Canadian Society for Color, Color Science Association of Japan, Dutch Society for the Study of Color, The Swedish Colour Centre Foundation, Colour Society of Australia, Centre Français de la Couleur. 2005; 30: 21-30.
23. 23. Bilgiç O, Türker ŞB. Diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin renk ölçüm başarılarının değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2015; 25:.
24. 24. Tabatabaian F, Beyabanaki E, Alirezaei P, Epakchi S. Visual and digital tooth shade selection methods, related effective factors and conditions, and their accuracy and precision: a literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021; 33: 1084-104.
25. 25. Abu-Hossin S, Onbasi Y, Berger L, Troll F, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Comparison of digital and visual tooth shade selection. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023; 9: 368-74.
26. 26. Vohra M, Shenoy A. In vitro evaluation of accuracy and reliability of tooth shade selection using different digital instruments. Cureus. 2024; 16: E52363.
27. 27. Hein S, Modrić D, Westland S, Tomeček M. Objective shade matching, communication, and reproduction by combining dental photography and numeric shade quantification. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021; 33: 107-17.
28. 28. Hassel AJ, Koke U, Schmitter M, Beck J, Rammelsberg P. Clinical effect of different shade guide systems on the tooth shades of ceramic-veneered restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2005; 18:.
29. 29. Tashkandi E. Consistency in color parameters of a commonly used shade guide. Saudi Dent J. 2010; 22: 7-11.
30. 30. Paul S, Peter A, Pietrobon N, Hämmerle C. Visual and spectrophotometric shade analysis of human teeth. J Dent Res. 2002; 81: 578-82.
31. 31. Rashid F, Farook TH, Dudley J. Digital shade matching in dentistry: a systematic review. Dent J. 2023; 11: 250.
32. 32. Dias S, Dias J, Pereira R, Silveira J, Mata A, Marques D. Different methods for assessing tooth colour-in vitro study. Biomimetics. 2023; 8: 384.
33. 33. Morsy N, Holiel AA. Color difference for shade determination with visual and instrumental methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews. 2023; 12: 95.
34. 34. Swarowsky LA, Pereira RF, Durand LB. Influence of image file and white balance on photographic color assessment. J Prosthet Dent. 2023; 130: 621-9.