Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2004 31; 483–491

Application of a digital technique in evaluating the reliability

of shade guides
E . C A L * , M . S O N U G E L E N * , P . G U N E R I †, A . K E S E R C I O G L U * & T . K O S E ‡ Departments of
† ‡
*Prosthodontics, Oral Diagnosis and Radiology and Computer Engineering, Ege University, I_ zmir, Turkey

SUMMARY There appears to be a need for a reliable statistical analysis using the repeated measure ANO-
method for quantification of tooth colour and ana- VA test. The L and RGB values of the images taken in
lysis of shade. Therefore, the primary objective of daylight differed significantly from those of the
this study was to show the applicability of graphic images taken in studio environment (P < 0Æ05). In
software in colour analysis and secondly to investi- both environments, the luminosity and red values of
gate the reliability of commercial shade guides the shade tabs were significantly different from each
produced by the same manufacturer, using this other (P < 0Æ05). It was concluded that, when the
digital technique. After confirming the reliability environmental conditions were kept constant, the
and reproducibility of the digital method by using Adobe Photoshop 4Æ0 colour analysis program could
self-assessed coloured images, three shade guides of be used to analyse the colour of images. On the other
the same manufacturer were photographed in day- hand, the results revealed that the accuracy of shade
light and in studio environments with a digital tabs widely being used in colour matching should be
camera and saved in tagged image file format (TIFF) readdressed.
format. Colour analysis of each photograph was KEYWORDS: digital analysis, shade guides, colour
performed using the Adobe Photoshop 4Æ0 graphic analysis, L and RGB values, aesthetic dentistry,
program. Luminosity, and red, green, blue (L and metamerism
RGB) values of each shade tab of each shade guide
were measured and the data were subjected to Accepted for publication 13 June 2002

commercially manufactured shade guides as the colour

Introduction
standard to which the colour of the tooth is matched.
Harmonious colour matching of a restoration to the Colour matching with shade guides is extremely diffi-
remaining dentition is of importance to many patients cult at the chairside because of variable viewer inter-
(1). Therefore a reliable method for intra-oral quanti- pretation and environmental influences such as fatigue,
fication of tooth colour would be of help to the dentist. ageing, emotion, lighting conditions and metamerism
The methods for evaluating the colour of tooth (3). Metamerism occurs when a match obtained under
crowns can be divided into two main categories: visual one set of viewing conditions is not obtained under a
and instrumental. The first category uses visual com- different set of viewing conditions (4). Furthermore,
parison with colour standards whereas the latter is there is a lack of consistency among and within
characterized by the use of instrumental measurement individual dentists in matching tooth colours by using
(2). the shade guides (5). This is because the dissimilarities
Visual colour determination by comparison of the between the centre and sides of a tooth in terms of
tooth colour with colour standards is the most fre- colour, shape, structure, and gloss may be interpreted
quently applied method in dentistry. Colour evaluation differently by each observer. Additionally, there are
by visual comparison is a subjective method using several other reported disadvantages of these guides,

ª 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 483

484 E . C A L et al.

such as the inadequate range of available shades and comparable results with conventional radiography and
their non-uniformity (3). direct digital imaging (10–13).
Instrumental colour analysis, on the other hand, Till date, there have been many reports discussing the
offers a potential advantage over visual colour deter- role of computers in colour analysis in clinical dental
mination, because instrumental readings are objective, practice. It is well-known that an ideal colour analysis
can be quantified, and are more rapidly obtained (2). method should be accurate, easy to apply and should
Spectrophotometers and colourimeters have been used enable retrospective assessment of results (5). Addi-
with modifications in an attempt to overcome prob- tionally, digital shade analysis systems have been
lems with visual shade matching in dentistry. Photo- designed to eliminate the subjectivity of colour analysis
electric tristimulus colourimeters have the potential to and provide exact information for laboratory buildup
remove some of the shortcomings of the visual and fabrication. Among these investigators, Bentley
method, and have been shown to provide accurate et al. (5) have derived a brightness index from lumin-
and repeatable measurements; however, they are not osity and red, green, and blue (L and RGB) values by
error proof. In dentistry, the results of a colourimetric using computer analysis of digitized images to monitor
device can be altered because the standardized illu- the effectiveness of nightguard vital bleaching.
minating light emitted from the device may be Although there are methods currently being used in
scattered, absorbed, transmitted, reflected and even prosthetic practice for colour analysis, there still appears
displaced in a sideways direction as a result of the to be a need for a reliable method in quantification of
translucent optical properties of teeth and dental tooth colour in dentistry. In the present study, the
ceramics. Seghi, Johnston and O’Brien (6) concluded applicability of graphic software in colour analysis was
that data collected by a colourimeter can be signifi- investigated. Additionally, the reliability of commer-
cantly altered by the translucency of the porcelains. cially manufactured shade guides was also investigated
Haywood et al. (7) found out that colourimeters are using this digital technique.
designed for flat surfaces, rather than the curved
translucent surfaces found on teeth. The non-uniform
Materials and methods
colour properties of teeth involve a complex layering of
tooth structure and subtle colour changes that chal-
Preliminary investigations
lenge even the best instruments. Many variables can
be partially controlled with the use of a positioning Determination of the reliability of the method: self-created
template that allows the machine to read the same image In the first part of the study, the reliability of a
general area of a tooth. This problem of non-uniform- digital colour analysis method was tested. For this
ity of teeth not only affects the results of a colourim- purpose, the Adobe Photoshop 4Æ0* image processing
eter, but also challenges the human eye as to which program was used to create an image with five standard
portion of the tooth to focus on. These multiple factors circular areas. Each consisted of a single colour: red,
test the accuracy of the colourimeter instruments and green, blue, yellow, and white. The L and RGB values
the way in which they are used by the researcher. It is of these circular areas were established separately using
not surprising therefore, that studies have reported a the histogram function of the software, and was
wide range of variations in comparing the results recorded as the original value. Then, the image was
obtained with the human eye with those obtained saved in tagged image file format (TIFF) to prevent any
using a colourimeter (3, 8). Additionally, the high cost data loss. Another two images were created following
and limited utility of these instruments prevent their the procedure outlined before and their L and RGB
common use in clinical dental practice (5). values were determined and compared with the ori-
As the ‘Information Age’ has started to have an ginal values.
impact on dental technology, usage of personal com-
puters in dentistry has become more widespread. Determination of the reliability of the method: a shade guide
Computer-aided design (CAD) and several other digital with 20 tabs In this part of the study, to test the
systems are commonly used by dental technicians to technique with the equipment used to determine
create precise dental restorations (9). Furthermore, in
dental radiology, several investigators have reported *Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA, USA.

ª 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 31; 483–491

 DIGITAL TECHNIQUE IN EVALUATING THE SHADE GUIDES 485

colour in dental practice, one Chromascop shade guide† by dividing these values with those of the correspond-
was placed on a black cardboard surface. A digital ing standard white paper. Statistical analysis of the data
camera‡ fixed on a tripod, perpendicular to the shade was made by using repeated measure ANOVA method
guide (object and camera distance 40 cm) was used to using the SPSS program (10Æ0 for Windows) in order to
obtain three images of the guide. These were taken investigate the significance of the differences between
consecutively at 11:00 hours under northern daylight, the same shade tabs of each guide under two different
on a clear day, and all were saved as TIFF images. The environments. The level of significance was established
images taken were resolved in a 24-bit resolution as a ¼ 0Æ05.
screen, and were analysed using the Adobe Photoshop
4Æ0 graphic program. During the analysis procedures,
Results
circular areas of 74 pixels in diameter were chosen in
the middle third portion of each tab and the L and RGB
Preliminary investigations
values of these particular areas were calculated. The
same procedures were repeated for the two other Determination of the reliability of the method: self-created
remaining images using the same coordinate points image Three original images with five standard circular
and standard fixed areas (74 pixels). areas, each consisted of a single colour: red, green,
blue, yellow, and white were evaluated by calculating
the L and RGB values of randomly selected coordinates
In vitro investigation of colour analysis
by using the histogram function of Adobe Photoshop
Daylight conditions In the third part of the study, a 4Æ0, in repeated attempts. It was observed that the
photograph of three shade guides of the same manu- digital colour analysis program established the L and
facturer was obtained in daylight as previously des- RGB values of the same coordinate points for each
cribed. However this time, white photograph paper coloured image identically as the original images,
(Mitsubishi photo paper-ink jet media§) was positioned revealing the reproduction and accuracy of the method
next to the shade guides to provide a standard control. (Table 1).

Studio environment In this part of the investigation, the Determination of the reliability of the method: a shade guide
background of the studio environment was of neutral with 20 tabs The results revealed that, in repeated
colours, and was illuminated by two paraflash attempts, the digital colour analysis program provided
(2 · 600 W) lamps and one soft box (600 W) lamp¶. identical L and RGB values of the selected areas with
the same coordinate points (Table 2).
Comparison of daylight and studio environment The same
images as for daylight conditions were recorded and
In vitro investigation of colour analysis (daylight versus
were saved in TIFF format. Standard and fixed circular
studio)
areas of 74 pixel in diameter were chosen in the middle
third portion of each tab, then the L and RGB values of The results of the digital colour measurements of three
these particular areas were calculated in all the images shade guides (X, Y and Z) performed in daylight and
obtained in both environments. The fixed circular areas studio are presented in Table 3a,b,c and Table 4a,b,c. The
were similarly selected from the white standard photo-
graph paper, which was next to the shade tabs to be
measured, and L and RGB values of these white areas Table 1. The L and RGB results of the self-constructed image
were also established. In order to eliminate the envi- with five different colours
ronmental factors that may influence the calculations,
the L and RGB values of each shade tab were ‘corrected’ Luminosity Red Green Blue

Red 77Æ43 254Æ66 2Æ10 0Æ34

Blue 29Æ79 2Æ85 1Æ31 254Æ75
†
Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Leichtenstein. Green 76Æ72 2Æ86 128Æ00 1Æ20
‡
Olympus Camedia C-2500-L. Melville, NY, USA. Yellow 227Æ24 254Æ63 254Æ83 3Æ70
§
Mitsubishi, Tokyo, Japan. White 255Æ00 255Æ00 255Æ00 255Æ00
¶
Multiblitz, RTS Inc., Deer Park, NY, USA.

ª 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 31; 483–491

486 E . C A L et al.

Table 2. Mean L and RGB values of

Luminosity Red Green Blue
shade guide 1, producing identical
Shade guide 1 Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. measurements after three different
attempts
110 232Æ07 4Æ44 249Æ01 3Æ1 229Æ64 5Æ26 198Æ9 5Æ99
120 230Æ99 2Æ7 249Æ02 1Æ9 228Æ47 3Æ45 193Æ9 4Æ28
130 230Æ42 2Æ98 248Æ9 1Æ93 227Æ95 3Æ43 191Æ7 6Æ22
140 229Æ87 3Æ13 249Æ24 2Æ25 227Æ32 3Æ2 189Æ8 7Æ23
210 227Æ72 2Æ68 248Æ62 1Æ69 225Æ3 3 180Æ9 7Æ76
220 226Æ4 2Æ87 247Æ65 1Æ84 223Æ63 2Æ96 180Æ5 6Æ8
230 219Æ41 3Æ8 244Æ66 2Æ76 216Æ3 3Æ94 165Æ6 7Æ47
240 220Æ04 3Æ84 245Æ95 2Æ6 217Æ48 3Æ62 161Æ5 9Æ59
310 222Æ13 3Æ32 246Æ83 2Æ08 219Æ83 3Æ26 163Æ9 7Æ54
320 216Æ5 3Æ86 243Æ59 2Æ78 214Æ61 3Æ83 152Æ6 8Æ43
330 218Æ86 4Æ45 245Æ56 2Æ7 216Æ95 4Æ18 155Æ3 11Æ45
340 212Æ58 6Æ08 241Æ39 4Æ01 210Æ05 5Æ76 148Æ4 15Æ72
410 219Æ17 4Æ41 241Æ89 3Æ36 216Æ51 4Æ5 171Æ1 6Æ88
420 219Æ16 3Æ99 241Æ46 2Æ97 216Æ83 3Æ89 170Æ5 7Æ81
430 219Æ11 3Æ28 242 2Æ41 216Æ88 3Æ3 168Æ3 7Æ53
440 214Æ14 4Æ3 238Æ84 2Æ85 216Æ64 4Æ14 160Æ7 9Æ89
510 211Æ48 3Æ77 237Æ22 2Æ95 209Æ07 3Æ52 154Æ5 8Æ35
520 204Æ12 4Æ66 232Æ87 3Æ04 201Æ84 4Æ8 139Æ3 11Æ03
530 201Æ69 4Æ66 233Æ64 3Æ36 199Æ47 4Æ72 128 10Æ13
540 192Æ04 6Æ29 229Æ82 3Æ46 187Æ05 6Æ98 117Æ7 11Æ84

The first column is the shade classification (110–540) taken from the shade guide.

Table 3. The mean L and RGB

Luminosity Red Green Blue
values of white photograph paper
Daylight Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. (used as control). (a) shade guide X,
(b) shade guide Y and (c) shade guide
(a) Z taken in daylight condition
White 221Æ05 0Æ95 220Æ21 1Æ41 221Æ29 0Æ9 223Æ05 0Æ66
110 200Æ69 7Æ18 207Æ28 5Æ67 201Æ52 7Æ27 178Æ57 12Æ61
120 198Æ51 6Æ68 206Æ73 4Æ69 199Æ35 6Æ9 172Æ14 13Æ11
130 196Æ65 6Æ78 205Æ76 4Æ65 197Æ61 7Æ03 167Æ4 14Æ57
140 196Æ13 7Æ51 205Æ78 5Æ64 197Æ16 7Æ6 164Æ87 15Æ94
210 191Æ45 8Æ1 203Æ67 5Æ44 192Æ88 8Æ66 150Æ79 15Æ15
220 190Æ95 8Æ44 204Æ56 5Æ33 191Æ14 8Æ91 152Æ63 17Æ23
230 186Æ39 10Æ18 203Æ04 6Æ05 186Æ19 10Æ64 143Æ13 21Æ27
240 188Æ28 12Æ28 205Æ04 8Æ09 188Æ11 12Æ73 144Æ04 24Æ68
310 187Æ08 12Æ36 202Æ28 8Æ14 188Æ01 12Æ81 140Æ65 23Æ91
320 180Æ42 11Æ88 197Æ95 8 180Æ8 12Æ38 130Æ67 23Æ02
330 176Æ29 11Æ28 196Æ21 7Æ84 176Æ77 12Æ41 119Æ68 17Æ8
340 169Æ61 12Æ49 192Æ28 9Æ06 168Æ43 13Æ45 113Æ74 20Æ53
410 185Æ24 11Æ57 198Æ03 9Æ39 185Æ55 11Æ45 149Æ02 20Æ18
420 180Æ93 11Æ2 193Æ86 9Æ37 181Æ2 11Æ58 143Æ82 16Æ61
430 184Æ91 11Æ82 195Æ89 8Æ92 185Æ81 12Æ07 150Æ02 20Æ73
440 173Æ88 11Æ71 187Æ16 10Æ15 174Æ88 12 132Æ49 16Æ58
510 173Æ16 12Æ13 187Æ77 9Æ97 173Æ6 12Æ31 131Æ36 18Æ67
520 168 14Æ97 184Æ93 11Æ99 167Æ65 15Æ44 123Æ42 23Æ18
530 166Æ68 16Æ92 185Æ63 13Æ32 165Æ79 17Æ48 119Æ67 26Æ94
540 158Æ27 17Æ35 180Æ92 13Æ45 154Æ94 18Æ04 113Æ97 27Æ56

(b)
White 222Æ72 0Æ56 219Æ54 0Æ63 223Æ48 0Æ58 223Æ96 1Æ28
110 202Æ75 8Æ44 209Æ14 6Æ97 203Æ73 8Æ37 180Æ07 14Æ97

ª 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 31; 483–491

 DIGITAL TECHNIQUE IN EVALUATING THE SHADE GUIDES 487

Table 3. Continued
Luminosity Red Green Blue

Daylight Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d.

120 199Æ89 6Æ51 208Æ2 4Æ55 201Æ17 6Æ62 170Æ71 13Æ19

130 199Æ11 7Æ22 206Æ79 5Æ14 200Æ41 7Æ49 171Æ48 13Æ7
140 197Æ83 9Æ04 207Æ5 6Æ48 199Æ15 8Æ94 164Æ82 18Æ59
210 195Æ55 8Æ9 207Æ41 6Æ46 196Æ91 8Æ83 155Æ89 19Æ14
220 193Æ69 9Æ95 205Æ82 6Æ72 194Æ29 10Æ44 157Æ38 19Æ95
230 188Æ55 12Æ1 203Æ61 8Æ25 188Æ93 12Æ26 145Æ96 24Æ58
240 187Æ08 11Æ11 203Æ82 6Æ55 187Æ12 11Æ89 141Æ54 22Æ46
310 187Æ96 12Æ2 202Æ51 8Æ15 189Æ27 12Æ47 141Æ08 23Æ92
320 183Æ74 11Æ19 200Æ14 7 185Æ01 11Æ55 132Æ93 23Æ05
330 182Æ15 11Æ19 200Æ3 7Æ06 183Æ31 11Æ87 126Æ53 21Æ52
340 174Æ42 14Æ64 196Æ01 9Æ75 173Æ47 15Æ5 120Æ96 25Æ66
410 187Æ34 10Æ17 199Æ75 7 187Æ92 10Æ55 150Æ33 18Æ6
420 188Æ82 13Æ93 199Æ87 10Æ42 189Æ74 14 153Æ8 24Æ58
430 183Æ29 12Æ29 195Æ08 9Æ59 184Æ51 12Æ66 144Æ57 19Æ63
440 177Æ18 11Æ52 189Æ29 9Æ12 178Æ55 11Æ98 136Æ78 17Æ35
510 177Æ01 13Æ34 190Æ64 10Æ95 178Æ01 13Æ44 134Æ56 21Æ14
520 166Æ77 12Æ79 183Æ17 11Æ58 167Æ15 12Æ84 119Æ71 18Æ8
530 171Æ63 17Æ46 189Æ36 13Æ49 171Æ86 17Æ78 122Æ47 29Æ46
540 159Æ17 15Æ68 182Æ13 12Æ5 156Æ25 16Æ45 111Æ95 23Æ79

(c)
White 223Æ39 0Æ78 218Æ93 0Æ86 224Æ53 0Æ76 224Æ74 0Æ48
110 202Æ09 9Æ57 206Æ98 8Æ43 203Æ38 9Æ16 181Æ66 16Æ36
120 200Æ51 10Æ34 207Æ42 8Æ82 202Æ15 9Æ85 173Æ43 18Æ47
130 197Æ23 10Æ72 205Æ54 7Æ97 198Æ98 10Æ66 165Æ59 20Æ02
140 197Æ49 9Æ38 206Æ6 6Æ64 199Æ02 9Æ36 164Æ54 18Æ86
210 193Æ88 10Æ84 204Æ87 8Æ02 195Æ96 10Æ68 153Æ29 21Æ66
220 192Æ34 10Æ98 203Æ97 7Æ67 193Æ37 11Æ13 155Æ49 20Æ8
230 187Æ8 12Æ56 202Æ3 8Æ93 188Æ51 12Æ6 144Æ81 24Æ23
240 187Æ56 14Æ02 203Æ7 9Æ18 188Æ07 14Æ5 141Æ14 26Æ6
310 188Æ92 14Æ16 202Æ13 10Æ99 190Æ54 13Æ78 144Æ34 27Æ13
320 181Æ59 15Æ52 197Æ5 11Æ29 182Æ88 15Æ81 131Æ1 27Æ65
330 183Æ48 16Æ59 199Æ06 12Æ22 185Æ36 16Æ62 130Æ87 31Æ46
340 170Æ17 14Æ48 190Æ41 11Æ23 169Æ97 15Æ07 116Æ07 23Æ76
410 187Æ27 14Æ01 198Æ38 10Æ67 188Æ28 14Æ33 151Æ77 23Æ14
420 187Æ51 15Æ93 198Æ56 13Æ04 188Æ51 16Æ04 151Æ64 25Æ13
430 185Æ85 13Æ67 196 10Æ5 187Æ62 13Æ85 148Æ06 23Æ3
440 178Æ14 14Æ06 188Æ97 12Æ12 180Æ03 14Æ02 138Æ08 20Æ9
510 178Æ51 17Æ9 190Æ7 14Æ87 179Æ74 17Æ76 138Æ41 27Æ8
520 168Æ64 16Æ11 183Æ33 14Æ14 169Æ61 16Æ13 123Æ71 23Æ36
530 166Æ19 17Æ04 182Æ8 14Æ66 167 17Æ11 116Æ12 25Æ3
540 157Æ97 16Æ51 179Æ18 14Æ09 155Æ89 16Æ89 110Æ92 23Æ36

The first column is the shade classification (110–540) taken from the shade guide.

L and RGB values of the images taken in daylight were In both the environments the luminosity and red
significantly different from those of the images obtained values were significantly different (for daylight:
in the studio environment (P < 0Æ0001) (Figs 1 and 2). As Plum ¼ 0Æ044, Pred ¼ 0Æ00, for studio: Plum ¼ 0Æ009,
the interactions between the environments and the Pred ¼ 0Æ00). On the other hand, although there were
shade guide factors were important (Plum ¼ 0Æ268, differences between the blue and green values in
Pred ¼ 0Æ0048, Pgreen ¼ 0Æ0387, Pblue < 0Æ0001) the sub- daylight and studio environments, the statistical analy-
sequent statistical analysis was carried out separately for sis revealed that the differences were not significant
daylight and studio environments. (P > 0Æ05).

ª 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 31; 483–491

488 E . C A L et al.

Table 4. The mean L and RGB

Luminosity Red Green Blue
values of white photograph paper
Studio Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. (used as control). (a) Shade guide X,
(b) shade guide Y and (c) shade guide
(a) Z taken in studio environment
White 230Æ22 1Æ04 228Æ78 1Æ52 229Æ97 1Æ01 231Æ53 0Æ97
110 188Æ89 22Æ53 197Æ34 19Æ74 189Æ3 22Æ65 163Æ42 30Æ48
120 183Æ67 20Æ64 192Æ58 18Æ58 184Æ55 21Æ18 154Æ85 26Æ23
130 183Æ67 22Æ64 192Æ33 20Æ7 184Æ82 22Æ58 153Æ92 30Æ31
140 179Æ44 19Æ09 189Æ83 17Æ54 180Æ19 19Æ74 147Æ33 22Æ86
210 182Æ41 20Æ55 195Æ58 17Æ82 183Æ34 21Æ13 141Æ47 27Æ7
220 180Æ14 21Æ21 193Æ5 19Æ2 179Æ96 21Æ65 144Æ77 28Æ37
230 174Æ15 23 190Æ72 19Æ88 173Æ66 23Æ66 131Æ23 32Æ35
240 174Æ02 24Æ58 191Æ76 21Æ22 173Æ43 25Æ36 128Æ85 33Æ49
310 175Æ87 24Æ13 190Æ13 21Æ22 176Æ98 24Æ46 130Æ95 34Æ27
320 171Æ04 21Æ38 188Æ44 18Æ35 170Æ95 22Æ12 123Æ84 30Æ05
330 172Æ9 24Æ47 190Æ89 20Æ97 173Æ58 25Æ38 120Æ22 33Æ2
340 165Æ41 23Æ45 185Æ54 20Æ41 164Æ76 24Æ23 114Æ23 32Æ45
410 182Æ5 22Æ93 194Æ82 20Æ04 182Æ72 23Æ3 147Æ61 30Æ96
420 181Æ26 22Æ41 191Æ87 20Æ19 182Æ26 22Æ74 147Æ28 29Æ06
430 176Æ94 22Æ86 187Æ26 20Æ98 178Æ18 23Æ27 141Æ73 28Æ52
440 174Æ84 26Æ21 186Æ96 23Æ46 175Æ67 26Æ57 136Æ99 33Æ21
510 169Æ07 21Æ65 181Æ62 20Æ29 169Æ63 22Æ13 131Æ85 25Æ82
520 159Æ97 21Æ77 174Æ63 21Æ11 160Æ29 21Æ91 118Æ17 26Æ73
530 165Æ59 22Æ86 183Æ23 20Æ27 165Æ22 23Æ8 119Æ52 30Æ38
540 156Æ62 24Æ64 178Æ2 20Æ12 153Æ84 22Æ51 112Æ67 26Æ85

(b)
White 233Æ49 0Æ67 230Æ75 0Æ88 234Æ5 0Æ73 233Æ63 0Æ79
110 200Æ12 17Æ47 207Æ13 15Æ41 201Æ32 17Æ48 174Æ56 24Æ4
120 194Æ07 19Æ05 202Æ11 17Æ53 195Æ38 18Æ92 165Æ6 26
130 186Æ77 17Æ57 195Æ18 16Æ91 187Æ88 17Æ76 158Æ11 20Æ36
140 186Æ6 21Æ8 197Æ83 18Æ88 187Æ92 22Æ16 149Æ16 30Æ3
210 190Æ2 17Æ84 202Æ28 15Æ73 191Æ75 18Æ14 149Æ29 24Æ2
220 181Æ24 18Æ82 195Æ69 17Æ64 181Æ51 19Æ03 140Æ25 23Æ29
230 179Æ86 21Æ34 195Æ51 18Æ19 180Æ06 22Æ23 136Æ18 27Æ99
240 171Æ67 19Æ6 190Æ23 17Æ92 171Æ33 20Æ58 123Æ12 23Æ88
310 178Æ48 23Æ32 193Æ62 20Æ44 180Æ04 23Æ81 128Æ95 31Æ62
320 176Æ97 17Æ92 193Æ21 15Æ4 178Æ31 19Æ05 125Æ57 23Æ61
330 171Æ66 23Æ12 190Æ87 19Æ92 172Æ71 24Æ42 113Æ55 28Æ74
340 168Æ78 21Æ37 188Æ9 18Æ63 168Æ62 22Æ62 114Æ29 28Æ42
410 182Æ56 16Æ18 194Æ11 14Æ99 183Æ72 16Æ66 145Æ57 19Æ13
420 182Æ3 18Æ87 194Æ02 17Æ26 183Æ33 19Æ3 144Æ58 23Æ13
430 185Æ69 22Æ29 196Æ68 19Æ31 187Æ06 22Æ8 147Æ82 29Æ93
440 175Æ95 22Æ01 187Æ7 19Æ44 177Æ42 22Æ82 135Æ72 27Æ33
510 178Æ61 20Æ96 191Æ85 18Æ25 179Æ92 21Æ95 135Æ46 26Æ17
520 161Æ33 17Æ38 177Æ36 18Æ2 161Æ63 17Æ97 116Æ01 17Æ19
530 170Æ41 19Æ74 189Æ26 17Æ72 170Æ88 20Æ82 116Æ94 23Æ43
540 160Æ78 16Æ56 182Æ42 16Æ08 158Æ59 17Æ86 113Æ31 19Æ03

(c)
White 232Æ79 0Æ99 229Æ51 0Æ65 233Æ93 0Æ93 231Æ67 0Æ99
110 199Æ45 18Æ91 205Æ91 17Æ07 200Æ73 18Æ75 175Æ13 25Æ99
120 191Æ16 21Æ7 199Æ44 20Æ06 193Æ04 21Æ25 158Æ82 29Æ35
130 188Æ5 22Æ56 197Æ55 20Æ48 190Æ11 22Æ44 153Æ98 30Æ66
140 184Æ65 19Æ32 195Æ13 17Æ2 186Æ47 19Æ56 146Æ29 25Æ99
210 185Æ13 21Æ87 197Æ53 18Æ9 187Æ06 22Æ43 141Æ19 30Æ28
220 185Æ84 19Æ21 198Æ41 17Æ52 186Æ99 19Æ52 145Æ16 24Æ66

ª 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 31; 483–491

 DIGITAL TECHNIQUE IN EVALUATING THE SHADE GUIDES 489

Table 4. Continued
Luminosity Red Green Blue

Studio Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d.

230 181Æ96 21Æ07 197Æ55 18Æ05 182Æ88 21Æ91 134Æ54 28Æ23

240 177Æ9 19Æ9 196Æ59 16Æ79 178Æ2 20Æ77 125Æ72 26Æ81
310 182Æ32 18Æ16 196Æ72 16Æ07 184Æ5 18Æ87 131Æ89 23
320 173Æ52 19Æ67 190Æ74 18Æ09 175Æ06 20Æ65 118Æ62 23Æ02
330 174Æ49 18Æ69 192Æ36 17Æ11 176Æ19 19Æ67 117Æ15 22Æ77
340 164Æ72 26Æ02 185Æ67 22Æ5 164Æ51 27Æ48 108Æ35 31Æ57
410 183Æ31 16Æ72 194Æ52 15Æ16 184Æ7 17Æ2 145Æ06 20Æ09
420 183Æ19 19Æ71 195Æ43 17Æ11 184Æ66 20Æ21 141Æ76 25Æ99
430 182Æ38 16Æ4 193Æ72 14Æ64 184Æ47 16Æ82 140Æ61 20Æ63
440 174Æ75 22Æ68 187Æ17 20Æ54 176Æ7 23Æ41 130Æ85 26Æ59
510 174Æ8 22Æ64 188Æ41 20 176Æ25 23Æ74 129Æ61 26Æ8
520 169Æ65 20Æ75 186Æ06 18Æ72 170Æ72 21Æ58 119Æ09 24Æ35
530 167Æ06 24Æ05 185Æ93 21Æ51 167Æ69 25Æ51 112Æ06 27Æ47
540 164Æ83 17Æ9 187Æ61 15Æ99 163Æ04 19Æ3 111Æ98 20Æ84

The first column is the shade classification (110–540) taken from the shade guide.

During the colour analysis procedures, to overcome

Discussion
the uncontrollable factors originating both from the
As digital methods of colour analysis in dental practice environment and the system, white photograph
have been more widespread, their use has been paper was used as a standard control and the values
questioned. Addy and Prayitno (14) showed that digital obtained from the analysis of the shade guides
analysis revealed similar results in both in vitro and in were ‘corrected’ with those of the white photograph
vivo studies that examined the staining ability of paper. This calibration, at the same time, shows
chlorhexidin. McCaslin et al. (15) used digital analysis similarities with the method Russell et al. (4) used in
to assess colour changes from nightguard vital bleach- their study.
ing. Hasegawa, Ikeda and Kawaguchi (16) have used In the present study, the statistically significant
computers to establish the difference of the colour and colour analysis results were obtained in the luminosity
translucency between natural teeth and a particular (greyness) and red values of the L and RGB system.
shade guide. Additionally, Bentley et al. (5) have Bentley et al. (5) also used the L and RGB system and
investigated the use of computer processing of photo- reported that brightness changes were dependent on
graphic images to monitor changes in tooth brightness the blue channel as blue was the colour opposite to
after nightguard vital bleaching by using L and RGB yellow, which is the dominant shade in tooth colour.
values. The results of this investigation revealed that However, in the shade guides investigated in this study,
software programs can be used effectively to analyse the changing of the shades from lightest to darkest is
the colour of digital images. As observed in the first part produced by the addition of grey, yellow, red and
of this experiment, L and RGB values of the coloured brown pigments, and grouping the tabs accordingly.
images were calculated correctly in all the analyses. The addition of grey and red pigments may be the
Therefore, this method was chosen to determine the reason that significant differences were found only in
accuracy of different shade guides from the same luminosity and red values. Furthermore, Hasegawa
manufacturer. et al. (16) reported the inadequacy of red-green chro-
Schwabacher and Goodkind (17) stated that the maticity of a particular shade guide to represent natural
translucency of the incisal edge makes the colour teeth. The comparison of these results with those of
background-dependent and the cervical measurements Bentley et al. (5) may not be appropriate, as the study
reflect darker values than the tooth itself. For this samples are different from each other (tooth versus
reason, to perform the colour analysis of the shade shade tabs). In another study, Yap (18) searched the
guides in the study, standard and fixed areas in the colour attributes and accuracy of Vita-based manufac-
middle third of the teeth were selected. turers’ shade guides using a colourimeter. In their

ª 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 31; 483–491

490 E . C A L et al.

240

220

200
Pixel values

180

160

140

120

100
XLuminosity

XRed

XGreen

XBlue

YLuminosity

YRed

YGreen

YBlue

ZLuminosity

ZRed

ZGreen

ZBlue
Shade guides (X,Y,Z)

Fig. 1. The variations between three shade guides in daylight conditions, with each block representing 20 colours of one guide.

240

220

200
Pixel values

180

160

140

120

100
XLuminosity

XRed

XGreen

XBlue

YLuminosity

YRed

YGreen

YBlue

ZLuminosity

ZRed

ZGreen

ZBlue

Shade guides (X,Y,Z)

Fig. 2. The variations between three shade guides in studio conditions, with each block representing 20 colours of one guide.

study, they showed that none of the manufacturers’ Metamerism has been described as the variation in the
shade tabs evaluated had all colour values that were perception of colour depending on the environmental
identical to their respective Vita shade tabs. Although a conditions. In this study, differences in L and RGB
digital analysis method was used in this study, these values were observed in daylight and studio environ-
findings also confirm that the reliability of shade guides ments. Additionally, significant interactions between
should be readdressed. the environments and shade guide factors were

ª 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 31; 483–491

 DIGITAL TECHNIQUE IN EVALUATING THE SHADE GUIDES 491

revealed. These findings contributed to the presence of 5. Bentley C, Leonard RH, Nelson CF, Bentley SA. Quantitation
metamerism in colour analysis, and confirmed the of vital bleaching by computer analysis of photographic
images. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130:809.
results of Johnston and Reisbick (19) who have stated
6. Seghi RR, Johnston WM, O’Brien WJ. Spectrophotometric
that small amounts of colour differences can be pro- analysis of colour differences between porcelain systems. J
duced from geometric and spectral metamerism. There- Prosthet Dent. 1986;56:35.
fore, it is believed that the colour differences observed in 7. Haywood VB, Leonard RH, Nelson CF, Brunson WD. Effect-
this study cannot be attributed to the manufacturers’ iveness, side effects, and long term status of Nightguard Vital
skills in producing the shade guides identically only, and bleaching. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994;125:1219.
8. Horn DJ, Bulan-Brady J, Hicks ML. Sphere spectrophotometer
that geometric and spectral metamerism could be
versus human evaluation of tooth shade. J Endod.
effective on the resultant values as well. 1998;24:786.
The results of the study indicate that: 9. Schmitt SM. Dental laboratory technology in the digital age. J
(i) The differences between the digital colour analysis Dent Technol. 2001;18:18.
values of the three images taken consecutively of one 10. Barbat J, Messer HH. Detectability of artificial periapical
lesions using direct digital and conventional radiography. J
shade guide were identical. When the environmental
Endod. 1998;24:837.
conditions were kept constant, Adobe Photoshop 4Æ0 11. Eikenberg S, Vandre R. Comparison of digital dental X-ray
colour analysis program could analyse the colour of the systems with self developing film and manual processing for
images correctly. endodontic file length determination. J Endod. 2000;26:65.
(ii) The digital colour analysis of shade guides of the 12. Gilbert WH, Richards GD. Digital imaging of bone and tooth
modification. Anat Rec. 2000;15:237.
same manufacturer was different in daylight and in
13. Gurdal P, Hildebolt CF, Akdeniz BG. The effects of different
studio environments. The existence of metamerism was
image file formats and image-analysis software programs on
supported with our results, as well. dental radiometric digital evaluations (Technical) Report.
(iii) The results of the colour analysis of shade guides in Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001;30:50.
the same environment are different from each other. In 14. Addy M, Prayitno SW. Light microscopic and colour television
other words, the shade guides analysed in the study are image analysis of the development of staining on chlorhex-
idine-treated surfaces. J Periodontol. 1980;51:139.
not identical with each other.
15. McCaslin,AJ, Haywood VB, Potter BJ, Dickinson GL, Russel
(iv) The statistical differences were originated from CM. Assessing dentin colour changes from nightguard vital
luminosity and red values with the colour analysis in bleaching. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130:148.
both environments. 16. Hasegawa A, Ikeda I, Kawaguchi S. Colour and translucency
of in vivo natural central incisors. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;4:418.
17. Schwabacher WB, Goodkind RJ. Three dimensional colour
References coordinates of natural teeth compared with three shade
guides. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64:425.
1. Geary JL, Kinirons MJ. Colour perception of laboratory-fired
18. Yap AU. Colour attributes and accuracy of Vita-based man-
samples of body-coloured eramic. J Dent. 1999;27:145.
ufacturers’ shade guides. Oper Dent. 1998;23:266.
2. Van der Burgt TP, ten Bosch JJ, Borsboom PCF, Kortsmit
19. Johnston WM, Reisbick MH. Colour and translucency chan-
WJPM. A comparison of new and conventional methods for
ges during and after curing of esthetic restorative materials.
quantification of tooth colour. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;63:155.
Dent Mater. 1997;13:89.
3. Okubo SR, Kanawati A, Richards MW, Childress S. Evaluation
of visual and instrument shade matching. J Prosthet Dent.
1998;80:642. Correspondence: Ebru Cal, Ege Universitesi Dis Hekimligi Fakultesi,
4. Russell MD, Gulfraz M, Moss BW. In vivo measurement of Protetik Dis Tedavisi AD, 35100 Bornova-Izmir, Turkey.
colour changes in natural teeth. J Oral Rehabil. 2000;27:786. E-mail: [email protected]

ª 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 31; 483–491