Advertisement

Development of a Model Shade Guide for Primary Teeth

  • R. D. ParavinaEmail author
  • G. Majkic
  • J. R. Stalker
  • S. Kiat-amnuay
  • J. W. Chen
Article

Abstract

Aim.: Large disparities in colour ranges and distribution between primary and permanent teeth make shade guides for permanent teeth unsuitable for primary teeth applications. The aim of the study was to develop a model shade guide for primary teeth. study Design: The Vita Easyshade intraoral spectrophotometer was used to determine colour at the middle labial/buccal third surface of 612 primary teeth of 102 patients. methods: Model shade guides, containing 1–16 tabs, were designed in CIELAB (ΔE*) and CIEDE2000 (ΔE’) colour difference formulae using nonlinear optimization. The coverage error (ΔECOV) was calculated as the mean of minimal colour differences between each of primary teeth and the “closest” shade tab. Results were analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics. Results: The coverage error of Vitapan Classical shade guide applied to the primary teeth evaluated was 4.2 (SD ± 1.8). ΔE*COV and ΔE’COV values for model shade guides with 16 tabs were 1.8 and 1.3, respectively. The CIELAB coverage error of the model shade guide containing two tabs outperformed ΔE*COV of Vitapan Classical. Conclusions: As compared with Vitapan Classical shade guide, significantly smaller coverage error was obtained in the model shade guide with the same number of tabs, designed via constrained nonlinear optimization.

Key words

colour shade guide restorative dentistry primary teeth spectrophotometer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Analoui M, Papkosta E, Cochran M, Malis B. Designing visually optimal shade guides. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92:371–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berns R. Billmeyer and Saltzman’s principles of color technology. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. Citron C. Esthetics in pediatric dentistry. NY State Dent J 1995; 61:30–31.Google Scholar
  4. Clark D, Hann H, Williamson M, Berkowitz JJ. Aesthetic concerns of children and parents in relation to different classifications of the tooth surface index of fluorosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993; 21:360–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark P, Powers JM, Seybold S, Fay R, Johnson, R. Primary teeth color in African-American, Caucasian and Hispanic patients. J Dent Res 1999; 78:231.Google Scholar
  6. Johnston WM, Kao EC. Assessment of appearance match by visual observation and clinical colorimetry. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 819–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim J, Paravina RD, Chen JW. In Vivo Evaluation of Color of Primary Teeth. Pediatric Dent 2007;29:209–212.Google Scholar
  8. Kuehni RG, Marcus RT. An experiment in visual scaling of small color differences. Color Res Appl 1979; 4:83–91.Google Scholar
  9. Lange K: Optimization. New York, Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. Luo MR, Cui G, Rigg B. The development of the CIE 2000 color-difference formula: CIEDE2000. Color Res Appl 2001;26:340–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayekar S. Shades of a color: illusion or reality? Dent Clin North Am 2001; 45:155–172.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. O’Brien W, Boenke K, Groh C. Coverage errors of two shade guides. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4:45–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. O’Brien W, Groh C, Boenke K. A new, small-color-difference equation for dental shades. J Dent Res 1990; 69:1762–1764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odioso L, Gibb R, Gerlach R. Impact of demographic, behavioral, and dental care utilization parameters on tooth color and personal satisfaction. Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl 2000; 29: S35–S41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Paravina R, Kimura M, Powers J. Evaluation of polymerization-dependent changes in color and translucency of resin composites using two formulae. Odontology 2005; 93: 46–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paravina R, Powers J, Fay R. Dental color standards: shade tab arrangement. J Esthet Restor Dent 2001; 13:254–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paravina R, Powers J, Fay RM. Color comparison of two shade guides. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15:73–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Paravina RD, Majkic G, Imai FH, Powers JM. Optimization of Tooth Color and Shade Guide Design. J Prosthodont 2007; 16:269–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paravina RD, O’Keefe KL, Kuljic BL. Color of permanent teeth: A prospective clinical study. Bass J. See http://www.ebass.org. 2006; 10:93–97.Google Scholar
  20. Paravina RD, Powers JM. Esthetic Color Training in Dentistry. St. Louis, El-sevier-Mosby, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. Ragain J, Johnston W. Color acceptance of direct dental restorative materials by human observers. Col Res Appl 2000; 25:278–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reno E, Sundberg R, Block R, Bush R. The influence of lip/gum color on subject perception of tooth color. J Dent Res 2000; 79:381.Google Scholar
  23. Seghi R, Hewlett E, Kim J. Visual and instrumental colorimeteric assessments of small color differences on translucent dental porcelain. J Dent Res 1989; 68:1760–1764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shaw WC, Meek SC, Jones DS. Nicknames, teasing, harassment, and the salience of dental features among school children. Br J Orthod 1980; 7:75–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Woo D, Shelter B, Williams B, Mancl L, Grembowski D. Dentists’ and parents’ perceptions of health, esthetics, and treatment of maxillary primary incisors. Pediatr Dent 2005, 27:19–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Yap AU, Bhole S, Tan KB. Shade match of tooth-colored restorative materials based on a commercial shade guide. Quintessence Int 1995; 26:697–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. D. Paravina
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. Majkic
    • 2
  • J. R. Stalker
    • 3
  • S. Kiat-amnuay
    • 1
  • J. W. Chen
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. Restorative Dentistry and BiomaterialsUniversity of Texas Dental BranchHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Dept. Mechanical Engineering and Texas Center for SuperconductivityTexasUSA
  3. 3.Dept. Pediatric DentistryUniversity of Texas Dental BranchHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations