Color differences

Polymerized composite and corresponding Vitapan Classical shade tab

William D. Browning, Rosalia Contreras-Bulnes, Martha G. Brackett, William W. Brackett

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This study compared newer composite resin restorative materials to the Vitapan Classical tabs they purported to represent. Methods: Five Vitapan Classical tabs were studied: A3.5, B2, C1, C3, and D2 (n = 3). These tabs created a variety of levels of lightness, chroma and hue. Each of these five shade tabs was removed from three different shade guides, and an intraoral spectrophotometer was used to capture CIELAB color coordinates. Three separate readings were made and all nine were averaged. The inter-tab color differences were also calculated. Five specimens approximately 4.0 mm thick were fabricated for each of the shades studied using five different composite resin materials. Composite specimens were of the same size and shape as target shade tabs, and three separate recordings were made for each of them. This average was compared to five Vitapan Classical shade tabs to calculate the color differences using both CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color difference formulas. Color differences were compared to thresholds for perceptibility and acceptability reported in other studies. Results: CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color differences ranged from 3.9 to 22.8 and from 2.1 to 13.8, respectively. None of the materials proved, an acceptable CIELAB color match to any of the shades tested. Conclusion: When various shade tabs of Vitapan Classical shade guides were compared with correspondent tabs made of direct restorative composites, no material/shade combination resulted in an acceptable mismatch relative to the used standard of acceptability. Therefore, evaluated resin composites exhibited poor match compared to target Vitapan Classical tabs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Dentistry
Volume37
Issue numberSUPPL. 1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 5 2009

Fingerprint

Color
Composite Resins
Reading

Keywords

  • Color
  • Color measurement
  • Composite resin
  • Delta E 2000
  • LCH
  • Lab
  • Spectrophotometer
  • Vita Classical shade guide

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Color differences : Polymerized composite and corresponding Vitapan Classical shade tab. / Browning, William D.; Contreras-Bulnes, Rosalia; Brackett, Martha G.; Brackett, William W.

In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 37, No. SUPPL. 1, 05.06.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{ce2296489a09438fa6fee04839d65336,
title = "Color differences: Polymerized composite and corresponding Vitapan Classical shade tab",
abstract = "Objectives: This study compared newer composite resin restorative materials to the Vitapan Classical tabs they purported to represent. Methods: Five Vitapan Classical tabs were studied: A3.5, B2, C1, C3, and D2 (n = 3). These tabs created a variety of levels of lightness, chroma and hue. Each of these five shade tabs was removed from three different shade guides, and an intraoral spectrophotometer was used to capture CIELAB color coordinates. Three separate readings were made and all nine were averaged. The inter-tab color differences were also calculated. Five specimens approximately 4.0 mm thick were fabricated for each of the shades studied using five different composite resin materials. Composite specimens were of the same size and shape as target shade tabs, and three separate recordings were made for each of them. This average was compared to five Vitapan Classical shade tabs to calculate the color differences using both CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color difference formulas. Color differences were compared to thresholds for perceptibility and acceptability reported in other studies. Results: CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color differences ranged from 3.9 to 22.8 and from 2.1 to 13.8, respectively. None of the materials proved, an acceptable CIELAB color match to any of the shades tested. Conclusion: When various shade tabs of Vitapan Classical shade guides were compared with correspondent tabs made of direct restorative composites, no material/shade combination resulted in an acceptable mismatch relative to the used standard of acceptability. Therefore, evaluated resin composites exhibited poor match compared to target Vitapan Classical tabs.",
keywords = "Color, Color measurement, Composite resin, Delta E 2000, LCH, Lab, Spectrophotometer, Vita Classical shade guide",
author = "Browning, {William D.} and Rosalia Contreras-Bulnes and Brackett, {Martha G.} and Brackett, {William W.}",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
journal = "Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0300-5712",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "SUPPL. 1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Color differences

T2 - Polymerized composite and corresponding Vitapan Classical shade tab

AU - Browning, William D.

AU - Contreras-Bulnes, Rosalia

AU - Brackett, Martha G.

AU - Brackett, William W.

PY - 2009/6/5

Y1 - 2009/6/5

N2 - Objectives: This study compared newer composite resin restorative materials to the Vitapan Classical tabs they purported to represent. Methods: Five Vitapan Classical tabs were studied: A3.5, B2, C1, C3, and D2 (n = 3). These tabs created a variety of levels of lightness, chroma and hue. Each of these five shade tabs was removed from three different shade guides, and an intraoral spectrophotometer was used to capture CIELAB color coordinates. Three separate readings were made and all nine were averaged. The inter-tab color differences were also calculated. Five specimens approximately 4.0 mm thick were fabricated for each of the shades studied using five different composite resin materials. Composite specimens were of the same size and shape as target shade tabs, and three separate recordings were made for each of them. This average was compared to five Vitapan Classical shade tabs to calculate the color differences using both CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color difference formulas. Color differences were compared to thresholds for perceptibility and acceptability reported in other studies. Results: CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color differences ranged from 3.9 to 22.8 and from 2.1 to 13.8, respectively. None of the materials proved, an acceptable CIELAB color match to any of the shades tested. Conclusion: When various shade tabs of Vitapan Classical shade guides were compared with correspondent tabs made of direct restorative composites, no material/shade combination resulted in an acceptable mismatch relative to the used standard of acceptability. Therefore, evaluated resin composites exhibited poor match compared to target Vitapan Classical tabs.

AB - Objectives: This study compared newer composite resin restorative materials to the Vitapan Classical tabs they purported to represent. Methods: Five Vitapan Classical tabs were studied: A3.5, B2, C1, C3, and D2 (n = 3). These tabs created a variety of levels of lightness, chroma and hue. Each of these five shade tabs was removed from three different shade guides, and an intraoral spectrophotometer was used to capture CIELAB color coordinates. Three separate readings were made and all nine were averaged. The inter-tab color differences were also calculated. Five specimens approximately 4.0 mm thick were fabricated for each of the shades studied using five different composite resin materials. Composite specimens were of the same size and shape as target shade tabs, and three separate recordings were made for each of them. This average was compared to five Vitapan Classical shade tabs to calculate the color differences using both CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color difference formulas. Color differences were compared to thresholds for perceptibility and acceptability reported in other studies. Results: CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color differences ranged from 3.9 to 22.8 and from 2.1 to 13.8, respectively. None of the materials proved, an acceptable CIELAB color match to any of the shades tested. Conclusion: When various shade tabs of Vitapan Classical shade guides were compared with correspondent tabs made of direct restorative composites, no material/shade combination resulted in an acceptable mismatch relative to the used standard of acceptability. Therefore, evaluated resin composites exhibited poor match compared to target Vitapan Classical tabs.

KW - Color

KW - Color measurement

KW - Composite resin

KW - Delta E 2000

KW - LCH

KW - Lab

KW - Spectrophotometer

KW - Vita Classical shade guide

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67649401673&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67649401673&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.008

M3 - Review article

VL - 37

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0300-5712

IS - SUPPL. 1

ER -