The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A Clinical Evaluation of Difference in Shades among Maxillary Central Incisor, Canine, and First Molar in a Young Age-group Using Digital Spectrophotometer: An In Vivo Study

Manupreet Kaur, Roopa Patil, Sunil Dhaded, Prashant Hegde, Neha Dhaded, Rashmi Rajesh Shah

Keywords : Digital spectrophotometer, Maxillary central incisor, VITA Easyshade, Young population

Citation Information : Kaur M, Patil R, Dhaded S, Hegde P, Dhaded N, Shah RR. A Clinical Evaluation of Difference in Shades among Maxillary Central Incisor, Canine, and First Molar in a Young Age-group Using Digital Spectrophotometer: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (9):907-912.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3392

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-02-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the most common shades of maxillary central incisor, canine and first molar and to confirm the shade difference between maxillary central incisor and canine in a young population of 18–25 years. Materials and methods: The shade of the maxillary central incisor, canine, and first molar of 100 study participants in a young population between 18 and 25 years were measured by digital spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade). The shade of each tooth was assessed thrice with a digital spectrophotometer at the center of the tooth. Statistical analysis was performed; Chi-squared test was applied to assess the difference in shades. Results: For the age-group of 18–25 years, the most common shade of maxillary central incisor is A1 and for canine and first molar the most common shade is B3. A highly statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed between teeth, suggesting a definitive shade difference between teeth. Conclusion: A definitive shade difference exists between the maxillary central incisor and the canine, with the canine being darker in shade than the central incisor. This result can be implied clinically while restoring maxillary anterior teeth to yield a better esthetic outcome. Clinical significance: This study reveals that there is a definitive shade difference between the Anterior teeth which should be considered while smile designing to replicate the natural appearance in a patient. Using a digital spectrometer makes the process of shade selection objective thereby eliminating any subjective variations.

PDF Share
  1. Mayekar SM. Shades of a color. Illusion or reality? Dent Clin North Am 2001;45(1):155–172. PMID: 11210693.
  2. Rodrigues S, Shetty SR, Prithviraj DR. An evaluation of shade differences between natural anterior teeth in different age groups and gender using commercially available shade guides. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2012;12(4):222–230. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0134-9.
  3. Watts A, Addy M. Tooth discoloration and staining: a review of the literature. Br Dent J 2001;190(6):309–316. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800959.
  4. Sarafianou A, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G, et al. Matching repeatability and interdevice agreement of 2 intraoral spectrophotometers. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107(3):178–185. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12) 60053-5.
  5. Kim–Pusateri S, Brewer JD, Davis EL, et al. Reliability and accuracy of four dental shade-matching devices. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101(3): 193–199. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60028-7.
  6. Douglas RD. Precision of in vivo colorimetric assessments of teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(5):464–470. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70137-9.
  7. Yap AU. Color attributes and accuracy of VITA-based manufacturers' shade guides. Oper Dent 1998;23(5):266–271. PMID: 9863448.
  8. Brewer JD, Wee A, Seghi R. Advances in color matching. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48(2):v, 341–358. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2004.01.004.
  9. Elamin HO, Abubakr NH, Ibrahim YE. Identifying the tooth shade in a group of patients using VITA Easyshade. Eur J Dent 2015;9(2):213–217. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.156828.
  10. Preston JD. Current status of shade selection and color matching. Quintessence Int 1985;16(1):47–58. PMID: 3883392.
  11. O'Brien WJ, Hemmendinger H, Boenke KM, et al. Color distribution of three regions of extracted human teeth. Dent Mater 1997;13(3):179–185. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80121-2.
  12. Baharin SA, Dong TY, Jing TW. Anterior tooth shade selection procedure: Influence of light sources and patient's position. Sains Malaysiana 2013;429(1):7–11.
  13. Jasinevicius TR, Curd FM, Schilling L, et al. Shade-matching abilities of dental laboratory technicians using a commercial light source. J Prosthodont 2009;18(1):60–63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008. 00376.x.
  14. Sirintawat N, Leelaratrungruang T, Poovarodom P, et al. The accuracy and reliability of tooth shade selection using different instrumental techniques: An in vitro study. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21(22):7490. DOI: 10.3390/s21227490.
  15. Alnusayri MO, Sghaireen MG, Mathew M, et al. Shade selection in esthetic dentistry: A review. Cureus 2022;14(3):e23331. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23331.
  16. Paul S, Peter A, Pietrobon N, et al. Visual and spectrophotometric shade analysis of human teeth. J Dent Res 2002;81(8):578–582. DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100815.
  17. Da Silva JD, Park SE, Weber HP, et al. Clinical performance of a newly developed spectrophotometric system on tooth color reproduction. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(5):361–368. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60083-9.
  18. Dozić A, Kleverlaan CJ, El-Zohairy A, et al. Performance of five commercially available tooth color-measuring devices. J Prosthodont 2007;16(2):93–100. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00163.x.
  19. Lee YK. Color correlations among six types of permanent anterior teeth. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016;28(Suppl. 1):S5–S13. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12193.
  20. Browning WD, Chan DC, Blalock JS, et al. A comparison of human raters and an intra-oral spectrophotometer. Oper Dent 2009;34(3):337–343. DOI: 10.2341/08-106. PMID: 19544824.
  21. Goodkind RJ, Schwabacher WB. Use of a fiber-optic colorimeter for in vivo color measurements of 2830 anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58(5):535–542. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(87)90380-5.
  22. Pop–Ciutrila IS, Colosi HA, Dudea D, et al. Spectrophotometric color evaluation of permanent incisors, canines and molars. A cross-sectional clinical study. Clujul Med 2015;88(4):537–544. DOI: 10.15386/cjmed-497.
  23. Chakroborty A, Venkatesh KV, Reddy VT. Color evaluation of central, lateral incisors and canines of South Indian population using spectrophotometric analysis: A cross-sectional study. Int J Sci Res 2018;7(6):33–36. DOI: 10.36106/IJSR.
  24. Shimada K, Kakehashi Y, Matsumura H, et al. In vivo quantitative evaluation of tooth color with hand-held colorimeter and custom template. J Prosthetic Dent 2004;91(4):389–391. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.02.006.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.