Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 244–250 | Cite as

Comparison of in vivo visual and computer-aided tooth shade determination

  • Burkard HugoEmail author
  • Tobias Witzel
  • Bernd Klaiber
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of shade-determining devices. For the daily practitioner, it is essential to know whether modern computer-aided shade selection is reliable in everyday life. So the question of how the clinical usability of these machines could be rated has to be clarified. In the following, three actual devices available in the market were compared using a human observer's perception. The SpectroShade device (MHT Optic Research AG, 8155 Niederhasli, Switzerland), the ShadeVision device (X-Rite Co., Grandville, USA) and the Digital Shade Guide DSG4 (A. Rieth, 73614 Schorndorf, Germany) were assessed with respect to their agreement with the color perception of three examiners looking at 57 test persons (six teeth each for a total of 342). Shades were reported in Vita Classical shades. It could be demonstrated that every single human examiner showed a significantly higher agreement value (human group on average 40.2%) when compared with the remaining five methods than each computer-aided tooth shade determination device. The devices reached on average only a value of 28.6%, whereas the X-Rite ShadeVision showed a significant better result (33.2%) than the MHT SpectroShade and Rieth DSG4 (27.0 and 25.7%). Identical shade results given by all three methods of a group (group of three devices and three humans) were found to be rather low for the computer-aided devices (9.9%) compared with humans (36.7%). All six methods together agreed in 3.3% of the cases. It becomes evident that the methods—especially the computer-aided shade determination—are rather divided about the respective tooth color. Deficiencies of the instrumental as well as the visual detection become obvious. The best agreement level was performed by the human examiners. The best agreement of the evaluated devices was obtained—generally as well as among the human testers—by the X-Rite ShadeVision system, followed at a statistically significant distance by the MHT SpectroShade and the Rieth DSG4. The agreement among the examiner group was 52.9%, significantly better than that of each device compared to this group (31.3% on average). Color detection and its realization are very complex. As shown, in many cases, computer-aided color shade determination of natural teeth seems to not reflect human perception.

Keywords

Tooth color Shade selection Measurement Agreement Color perception 

References

  1. 1.
    Berger-Schunn A (1994) Praktische Farbmessung: ein Buch für Anfänger, eine Gedächtnisstütze für Könner, 2nd edn. Muster-Schmidt, Göttingen ZürichGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Billmeyer FW, Saltzman M (1981) Principles of color technology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chu SJ, Tarnow DP (2001) Digital shade analysis and verification: a case report and discussion. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 13:129–136 (quiz 138)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chu SJ (2002) Precision shade technology: contemporary strategies in shade selection. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 14:79–83 (quiz 84)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Culpepper WD (1970) A comparative study of shade-matching procedures. J Prosthet Dent 24:166–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faber FJ, Schlegel G (1995) Visuelle und messtechnische Zuordnung der Zahnfarbe. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 9:661–663Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horn DJ, Bulan-Brady J, Hicks ML (1998) Sphere spectrophotometer versus human evaluation of tooth shade. J Endod 24:786–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohlmeyer B, Scheller H (2002) Zahnfarbenbestimmung mit dem PC-gestützten Messgerät “Digital Shade Guide”. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 57:172–175Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mayekar SM (2001) Shades of a color. Illusion or reality? Dent Clin North Am 45:155–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paul S, Peter A, Pietrobon N, Hammerle CH (2002) Visual and spectrophotometric shade analysis of human teeth. J Dent Res 81:578–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sproull RC (2001) Color matching in dentistry. Part I. The three-dimensional nature of color. J Prosthet Dent 86:453–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wee AG, Kang EY, Johnston WM, Seghi RR (2000) Evaluating porcelain color match of different porcelain shade-matching systems. J Esthet Dent 12:271–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wyszeki G, Stiles WS (1982) Color science, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yap AU, Sim CP, Loh WL, Teo JH (1999) Human-eye versus computerized color matching. Oper Dent 24:358–363PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthodonticsBavarian Julius Maximilian University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Klinik und Polikliniken für Zahn-, Mund- und KieferkrankheitenUniversität WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  3. 3.WürzburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of Operative Dentistry and PeriodontologyBavarian Julius Maximilian University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations