IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of Gingival Shade Guides With a Dental Spectrophotometer
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to establish and evaluate an automatic shade selection system using a dental spectrophotometer.
Methods: The Commision Internationale de l’Eclairage Lab color space (CIELAB) values of each shade tab for two selected gingival shade guide systems, the Acron (GC) and the IPS (Ivoclar Vivadent), were measured using a spectrophotometer (Crystaleye, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Spectrophotometric color measurements of the attached gingiva for each maxillary lateral incisor, using a custom shading cover, were measured on 12 subjects with healthy gingiva. For each subject, the closest matching shade tabs of the two shade guide systems were selected, and the color differences (ΔEs) were calculated using supporting software. The coverage error (CE) for each shade guide system for the 12 subjects was calculated. Statistical comparison of the CE between the two shade guide systems was carried out with a paired t-test (α=0.05).
Results: Preliminary human tooth(Maxillary central incisor) surface color evaluation showed no significant differences when using original shading cover (L*71.5±3.0, a*2.8±1.3, b*17.7±3.7) compared to a custom shading cover (L*71.1±2.4, a*2.8±1.4, b*17.8±3.7). A statistically significant difference was found between the CE of the two gingival shade guide systems, Acron (ΔE=7.5±1.6) and IPS (ΔE=3.9±1.8), (p<0.01).
Conclusions: The IPS gingival shade guide system had approximately 50% lower CE compared to the Acron gingival shade guide system. Use of a dental spectrophotometer can be automated to pick the closest gingival shade tab of two gingival shade guide systems.
Methods: The Commision Internationale de l’Eclairage Lab color space (CIELAB) values of each shade tab for two selected gingival shade guide systems, the Acron (GC) and the IPS (Ivoclar Vivadent), were measured using a spectrophotometer (Crystaleye, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Spectrophotometric color measurements of the attached gingiva for each maxillary lateral incisor, using a custom shading cover, were measured on 12 subjects with healthy gingiva. For each subject, the closest matching shade tabs of the two shade guide systems were selected, and the color differences (ΔEs) were calculated using supporting software. The coverage error (CE) for each shade guide system for the 12 subjects was calculated. Statistical comparison of the CE between the two shade guide systems was carried out with a paired t-test (α=0.05).
Results: Preliminary human tooth(Maxillary central incisor) surface color evaluation showed no significant differences when using original shading cover (L*71.5±3.0, a*2.8±1.3, b*17.7±3.7) compared to a custom shading cover (L*71.1±2.4, a*2.8±1.4, b*17.8±3.7). A statistically significant difference was found between the CE of the two gingival shade guide systems, Acron (ΔE=7.5±1.6) and IPS (ΔE=3.9±1.8), (p<0.01).
Conclusions: The IPS gingival shade guide system had approximately 50% lower CE compared to the Acron gingival shade guide system. Use of a dental spectrophotometer can be automated to pick the closest gingival shade tab of two gingival shade guide systems.