• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.5
• /
• pp.411-418
• /
• 2007

The most scientific and reliable method for deciding the tooth color is the instrumental measurement. However, such color measuring instrument shows the difference of the measuring value according to the diversified measuring condition. This study was conducted to evaluate what effect of the labial surface irregularity of the tooth to the result of the color measured by spectrometer. 11 models of the teeth were made by injecting the A2 shade Luxatemp Automix Plus (DMG, Germany) into the impression acquired from 11 adults. Standard disk samples (15 mm diameter, 7 mm thickness) were made with same material. CIE $L^*a^*b^*$ value was measured at the incisal, central, and gingival area of the central incisor, lateral incisor, canine and first premolar using Specbos 2100 (JETI, Germany) spectrometer. Color difference was calculated between labial surface and standard samples. Among all models of the teeth, $L^*\;and\;b^*$ value showed the reducing tendency as they go toward the gingival area, but $a^*$ value showed the increasing tendency. Color difference between model teeth and standard samples showed the most difference at the incisal area, but the gingival area showed the least difference. And the canine showed the least color difference from the comparison of standard sample, and the central incisor showed the highest difference (p < 0.01). Although the visually detectable difference of the measuring value showed notably depending on the type and measured area (p < 0.05), $L^*\;and\;a^*$ value showed notable differences depending more on the measured areas than on the type of the teeth.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.352-368
• /
• 2008

This study was done to evaluate the reliability of the digital color analysis system (ShadeScan, CYNOVAD, Montreal. Canada) for dentistry. Sixteen tooth models were made by injecting the A2 shade chemical cured resin for temporary crown into the impression acquired from 16 adults. Surfaces of the model teeth were polished with resin polishing cloth. The window of the ShadeScan handpiece was placed on the labial surface of tooth and tooth images were captured, and each tooth shade was analyzed with the ShadeScan software. Captured images were selected in groups, and compared one another. Two models were selected to evaluate repeatability of ShadeScan, and shade analysis was performed 10 times for each tooth. And, to ascertain the color difference of same shade code analyzed by ShadeScan, CIE $L^*a^*b^*$values of shade guide of Gradia Direct (GC, Tokyo, Japan) were measured on the white and black background using the Spectrolino (GretagMacbeth, USA), and Shade map of each shade guide was captured using the ShadeScan. There were no teeth that were analyzed as A2 shade and unique shade. And shade mapping analyses of the same tooth revealed similar shade and distribution except incisal third. Color difference (${\Delta}E^*$) among the Shade map which analyzed as same shade by ShadeScan were above 3. Within the limits of this study, digital color analysis instrument for dentistry has relatively high repeatability, but has controversial in accuracy.