Minimum Color Differences for Discriminating Mismatch between Composite and Tooth Color

• Published in: Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry 2001-01, Vol.13 (1), p.41-48
• Main Authors: RAGAIN JR, JAMES C., JOHNSTON, WILLIAM M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis of Variance; Color; Color Perception; Composite Resins - chemistry; Dental Auxiliaries; Dentistry; Dentists; Humans; Logistic Models; Patients; Probability; Resin Cements - chemistry; Science; Spectrophotometry, Ultraviolet; Statistics as Topic; Tooth - anatomy & histology
• ISSN: 1496-4155; 1708-8240
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2001.tb00250.x

ABSTRACT Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if there are differences between patients and dental professionals in their ability to identify small color differences (AE) in composite resin restorative materials in vitro and to determine the AE that would indicate acceptability of color match between a restoration and an adjacent tooth. Materials and Methods: Subjects were asked to evaluate composite resin disks to distinguish acceptability of ΔE between disk pairs. Color difference discrimination of dental professionals groups D1 (dentists, n = 12) and D2 (dental auxiliaries, n =12) was compared to that of dental patient groups P1 (patients, n = 12) and P2 (scientists, n = 12). Each group was pretested for normal color vision. Color differences between a standard and restoration disks of composite were measured in Colour Measurement Committee (CMC) (1:1) color units. Data were analyzed by logistic regression, and results were used to calculate a probability level for minimal acceptance or rejection of ΔE for all observers. Mean 50:50 ΔE replacement points (RP) for each group were obtained and analyzed by analysis of variance, and the Tukey pairwise comparison test was applied (α= 0.05 for all statistical analyses). Results: There were significant differences found between the experimental groups (p= .020). Group D2 (mean 50:50 ΔE RP = 1.78) proved to be more discriminating in accepting differences between tooth and composite resin restorative material color than group P1 (mean 50:50 AE RP = 2.69). The mean 50:50 ΔE RP for all subjects was 2.29 CMC (1:1) units. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The ability to generate an excellent color match between a tooth‐colored restoration and the tooth is critical to esthetic success. This study demonstrates that patients are not as discriminating in their ability to identify small color differences between composite restorations and the tooth as are dental professionals. Dental auxiliaries proved to be more discriminating in accepting differences between tooth and composite resin restorative material color than were patients.