Influence of tab and disk design on shade matching of dental porcelain☆☆☆★★★♢♢♢

Abstract 

Statement of Problem. Given the complexity of tooth color, the variations of shade within each tooth, and translucency, it is difficult to view only one small area and select a shade match for restorations. Purpose. This study tested the effect of specimen design on porcelain shade matching, hypothesizing that flat disks would be matched to one another with more accuracy than tooth-shaped tabs to tabs. Material and Methods. All testing was conducted in a Macbeth SpectraLight booth with D65 illumination. Seventy-three senior dental students (25 women and 48 men; mean age, 27 years) were asked to match selected Vita porcelain disks and Vita shade tabs to like specimens. The design order, namely matching tabs or disks first, was alternated for each observer. The specimens were handed to the observer individually. No time limit for matching was imposed, although each observer was given explicit instructions related to the observation and handling of the specimens. Upon completion of the matching exercises, each student received his or her standardized test results and reviewed the matching results. The time for testing and review was approximately 20 minutes per observer. An analysis of variance, with gender and order as 2 factors that could affect matching scores, was performed (P <.05). Results. The mean matching scores were 78.4% for disks and 73.6% for tabs (P=.119). Female observers matched 76.5% of the disks and 77.5% of the tabs, whereas male observers matched 79.4% of the disks and 71.6% of the tabs (P=.054). Matching disks before tabs yielded equivalent levels of shade matching (disks, 77.6%; tabs, 77.1%). When tabs were matched first, the scores were as follows: disks, 79.8%, and tabs, 67.3% (P=.010). Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, there was no significant difference in shade-matching accuracy between the 2 shapes, although the order of design matching resulted in a difference in shade-matching ability. When tabs were matched first and disks second, improved matching was evident on the second test. The reverse was not true; no learning was demonstrated when the tabs were matched after the disks. (J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:591-7.)