Performance of a New Simplified Shading System in Anterior Restorations

Objectives: To compare simplified shading systems’ abilities to match existing dentition in class IV restorations in denture teeth incisors.
Methods: Class IV cavities were made in 45 VITA PHYSIODENS® #9 incisors (shades=15, n=3 of each). Preparations were beveled, sandblasted, and 3M™ Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive was placed and cured per manufacturer’s instructions. Composite (Table 1) was used to restore the tooth and light-cured per manufacturer’s instructions. The restoration was finished with a burr and polished with the 3M™ Sof-Lex™ Diamond Polishing System.
A Datacolor SpectraVision spectrophotometer was used to record the color of a 1mm² area of the restoration and a 1mm² area of the tooth. Color differences were calculated according to the DE*ab and DE2000 calculation methods. Coverage error (CE) was calculated for either DE*ab or DE2000 as:
CE = (1/n)*Σ_i(DE_i)
where n=number of shades, DE_i=individual shade color difference. CE uncertainties were taken as the standard deviation of the CE.
Results: CE values for DE*ab and DE2000 are shown in Tables 2 and 3. In each column, statistically different values are labeled with different superscripted letters, as calculated by Tukey’s ANOVA.
In all cases, FSU provided the lowest CE. Regarding simplified shading systems, FEM had a statistically smaller CE than OMNI when using the DE*ab metric, but not when using DE2000.
Shades were divided up into light, medium and dark groups, based upon their color difference from pure white, putting five shades in each group. In the Light and Medium groups, FEM and OMNI were not statistically different. In the Dark group, FEM provided a statistically smaller CE than did OMNI.
Conclusions: While overall coverage error differences depended upon the chosen color difference calculation, within the limitations of this study, FEM provided a closer color match to existing dentition for shades in the dark group than did OMNI.