Effect of different instrumental techniques and clinical experience on shade matching

Abstract

AbstractPurposeMany factors can affect the aesthetics of dental restorations, including the instrumental techniques used in shade matching, and can lead to clinical failure. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of using the cross‐polarization digital photograph technique and intraoral scanners for shade matching, and also evaluate the effect of the level of clinical experience on shade matching success.Materials and MethodsColor analysis was performed on the maxillary right central incisors of 10 subject models with Vita Easyshade. Intraoral scanning was performed 10 times on each model using TRIOS 3 and color analysis was performed from the same spot. Then cross‐polarized and non‐polarized photographs of the models were taken with standard settings using a gray reference card. Each shade tab of the Vita System 3D‐Master scale was also photographed with two different polarization techniques. Four groups (n = 12), including prosthodontics faculty staff, postgraduate students in prosthodontics, undergraduate students, and dental technicians matched the shade tabs and the model photographs obtained with both techniques on a standardized computer screen. Finally, the color differences between the shade tabs and maxillary central incisors matched by observers from four different groups were recorded using a colorimeter, Classic Color Meter, in accordance with the CIELAB system and CIEDE2000 (ΔE00) values were calculated. The data were compared with the acceptability threshold of 1.80 for ΔE00. The data obtained from the observers were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 Release Notes program. Independent Samples t‐test was used to compare normally distributed data according to binary groups. The level of significance was 0.05.ResultsA statistically significant difference was found in the shade matching on photographs taken with different techniques in postgraduate students (p = 0.02). Also, there was a statistically significant difference in success between the groups that made shade matching based on photographs obtained with the non‐polarization technique (p = 0.00). The undergraduate students achieved statistically significantly lower results than all other groups (ΔE00 = 5.57 ± 1.07). The kappa value between the intraoral scanner and spectrophotometer results was 0.10, and this value was not statistically significant (p = 0.32).ConclusionsThe cross‐polarization technique used especially for shade matching is not superior to the non‐polarization technique. Academic and clinical experience might be correlated with shade‐matching success with the non‐polarization technique. The clinical acceptability threshold could not be achieved in the shade matchings made on digital photographs taken with both techniques. Shade matching performed with an intraoral scanner did not yield reliable results.