Evaluation of Tooth Shade Selection Comparing two Corrected Light Sources

Objectives: AIM: Compare the effectiveness of Ring Light (RF) and the Dental Base Light Tri-Shade (DBLTS) for in vitro resin color selection, according to the clinical experience of dental students in the Universidad Privada del Valle, Bolivia.
Methods: METHODS: The color perception analysis was performed on stock teeth of predetermined shades from Ivoclar Vivadent Chromascop shade guide, properly mounted on an upper model. The 4 base shades chosen were: Central Incisors 1A(A), Laterals and Canines 4A(B), Premolars 6B(C), and Molars 1E(D). The following was considered for the matching shade selection: a) total effectiveness, b) chosen within the same base hue: scale effectiveness and c) out of scale. The color perception was analyzed by 50 students considered: without clinical experience from 3rd and 4th year of dental school and with clinical experience students from 5th year and residents. Everyone received the same instructions prior to color selection. The model was positioned 25 cm from the operator and 10 cm from ADL and BLTS, which have a light source color temperature of 5.500 Kelvin degrees. Dental students had to use a shade tab no more than 10 seconds for each shade matching. The data was collected in Excel and analyzed with SPSS software (v.20.) and compared with T test p=0.05.
Results: RESULTS: There were no significant differences between shade selection with RF or DBLTS (p=>0.05) for DBLTS1A(A) was p=0.630, DBLTS 4A(B) p=0.453, DBLTS 6B(C) p=0.795, DBLTS1E (D) p=0.676 and for RL 1A(A) p=0.669, RL6B(B) p=0.383, RL6B(C)p= 0.969, RL1E(D) p=0.869.
Conclusions: CONCLUSIONS: Our data revealed that there are no significant differences in color selection using RL or DBLTS, both corrected light sources. There was no association according to clinical experience. Therefore, we suggest the use of RL for its cost-benefit at Univalle dental school.