International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2022 ) > List of Articles


A Comparative Study on the Visual Shade Matching Performance of Dental Students

Shubhabrata Roy, Deepa Raj, Tapan Kumar Giri, Sugata Mukherjee

Keywords : Artificial illuminant, Shade guide, Shade matching, Shade selection

Citation Information : Roy S, Raj D, Giri TK, Mukherjee S. A Comparative Study on the Visual Shade Matching Performance of Dental Students. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (1):25-29.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1354

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 18-10-2022

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


Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the visual shade matching performance of dental students using two conceptually different shade guides under three different artificial light sources. Materials and methods: The shade matching performance of 100 (50 males and 50 females) undergraduate dental students was evaluated in a custom-made booth with two conceptually different shade guides, VITAPAN classical, and VITA 3D-Master, under three different artificial light sources: incandescent lamp with a color temperature of 2750 K, compact fluorescent lamp () with a color temperature of 6500 K, and light-emitting diode (LED) with a color temperature of 4000 K. In the viewing booth, the shades of the middle third of the selected shade tabs of two different shade guide sets were matched with the help of the other two shade guide sets. Results: Out of 4800 shade matches done by 100 participants, only 34.27% were done correctly. Each participant performed 48 shade matches; 24 with VITAPAN classical and 24 with VITA 3D-Master. Female students performed better at shade matching than male students. There was a significant difference in mean scores of shades matching with the VITAPAN classical shade guide under different lights (p < 0.0001). A significant difference was also found in mean scores of shades matching with the VITA 3D-Master shade guide under different lights (p < 0.0001). The lighter shades were better matched by the students than the comparatively darker shades. No significant difference was found in mean scores of correct shades matching between the VITAPAN classical shade guide and VITA 3D-Master shade guide under different illuminants (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The light source and lighting condition had a greater impact on shade matching performance than the shade guide. CFL or artificial cool daylight was found significantly better for shade matching in a dental setup than the other two illuminants used in this study. Although no significant difference was seen in shade matching performance with two different types of shade guides, the intraobserver agreement was better with the VITA 3D-Master.

PDF Share
  1. Veeraganta SK, Savadi RC, Baroudi K, et al. Differences in tooth shade value according to age, gender and skin color: a pilot study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2015;15(2):138–141. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.155035
  2. Borse S, Chaware SH. Tooth shade analysis and selection in prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20(2):131–140. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_399_19
  3. Basavanna RS, Gohil C, Shivanna V. Shade selection. Int J Oral Health Sci 2013;3(1):26–31. DOI: 10.4103/2231-6027.122097
  4. Van der Burgt TP, Bosch JJ, et al. A comparison of new and conventional methods for quantification of tooth color. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63(2):155–162. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90099-x
  5. Hammad IA. Intrarater repeatability of shade selections with two shade guides. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(1):50–53. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.60
  6. Parameswaran V, Anilkumar S, Lylajam S, et al. Comparison of accuracies of an intraoral spectrophotometer and conventional visual method for shade matching using two shade guide systems. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16(4):352–358. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.176537
  7. Yilmaz B, Yuzugullu B, Cınar D, et al. Effects of shade tab arrangement on the repeatability and accuracy of shade selection. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105(6):383–386. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60079-6
  8. Della Bona A, Barrett AA, Rosa V, et al. Visual and instrumental agreement in dental shade selection: three distinct observer populations and shade matching protocols. Dental Materials 2009;25(2):276–281. DOI: 10.1016/
  9. 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
  10.,27568.html Retrieved on 29.05.2020
  11. Paravina RD, Powers JM. Esthetic color training in dentistry, Elsevier Mosby 2004.
  12. Paravina RD. Evaluation of a newly developed visual shade-matching apparatus. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15(6):528–534. PMID: 12475156.
  13. Brewer JD, Wee A, Seghi R. Advances in color matching. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48(2):341–358. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2004.01.004
  14. Miyajiwala JS, Kheur MG, Patankar AH, et al. Comparison of photographic and conventional methods for tooth shade selection: a clinical evaluation. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17(3):273–281. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_342_16
  15. Bayindir F, Kuo S, Johnston WM, et al. Coverage error of three conceptually different shade guide systems to vital unrestored dentition. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98(3):175–185. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60053-5
  16. Anand M, Shetty P, Bhat SG. Shade matching in fixed prosthodontics using instrumental color measurements and computers. J Prosthet Dent 2007;7(4):179–183. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.41068
  17. Moser JB, Wozniak WT, Naleway CA, et al. Colour vision in dentistry: a survey. J Am Dent Assoc 1985;110(4):509–510. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1985.0392
  18. Gokce HS, Piskin B, Ceyhan D, et al. Shade matching performance of normal and color vision-deficient dental professionals with standard daylight and tungsten illuminants. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103(3):139–147. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60020-0
  19. Yamamoto M. Metal-Ceramics: Principles and methods of Makoto Yamamoto, Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc., Chicago, Illinois 1985.
  20. Curd FM, Jasinevicius RT, Graves A, et al. Comparison of the shade matching ability of dental students using two light sources. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96(6):391–396. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.10.001
  21. Okubo SR, Kanawati A, Richards MW, et al. Evaluation of visual and instrument shade matching. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80(6):642–648. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70049-6
  22. Barrett AA, Grimaudo NJ, Anusavice KJ, et al. Influence of tab and disk design on shade matching of dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(6):591–597. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.129892
  23. Donahue JL, Goodkind RJ, Schwabacher WB, et al. Shade color discrimination by men and women. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65(5):699–703. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90209-f
  24. Mete JJ, Dange SP, Khalikar AA, et al. Comparative study of shade matching performance of dental students under natural daylight and daylight lamp conditions. Eur J Esthet Dent 2013;8(2):192–199.
  25. 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
  26. Lee YK, Yu B, Lim JI, et al. Perceived color shift of a shade guide according to the change of illuminant. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105(2)91–99. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60006-1
  27. Nakhaei M, Ghanbarzadeh J, Keyvanloo S, et al. Shade matching performance of dental students with three various lighting conditions. J Contemp Dent Prac 2013;14(1):100–103. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1279
  28. Todorov R, Yordanov B, Peev T, et al. Shade guides used in the dental practice. J of IMAB 2020;26(2)3168–3173. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2020262.3168
  29. Alnusayri M, Sghaireen M, Mathew M, et al. Shade selection in esthetic dentistry: a review. Cureus 2022;14(3):e23331. DOI:10.7759/cureus.23331
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.