Color acceptance of direct dental restorative materials by human observers

James Ragain, William M. Johnston

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

153 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to evaluate the CIELAB, CMC (2:1), and CMC (1:1) formulas to identify which provides the best indicator for acceptability of small color differences in the esthetic dental restorative materials, to determine if different groups of observers have different levels of acceptability, and to estimate the color difference that would indicate acceptability between a restoration and an adjacent tooth. The subject population of human observers was divided into four groups, each containing 12 subjects. The composition of the groups were: Group 1, dental auxiliaries and hygienists; Group 2, dentists; Group 3, dental materials scientists; and Group 4, patients. A color vision screening test was administered to each subject to ensure that only observers with normal color vision were evaluated. A composite resin color discrimination test was developed specifically for this study. This test was composed of six sets of discs fabricated from dental composite resin restorative materials. Each set consisted of one standard disc representing tooth color. In each set, six discs representing composite resin restorations were matched to the standard disc for a total of 36 pairings in the test. Color differences between the standard discs and the restoration discs were calculated in CIELAB, CMC (1:1), and CMC (2:1) color units. The subjects were asked to evaluate the composite resin materials as to acceptability of color differences between the disc pairs. The data were analyzed by logistic regression analysis for each observer and by each ΔE formula to generate receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. The areas under these ROC curves were calculated and ranked. ANOVA and Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test were applied to the ranks. In regard to the acceptance of dental restorations based solely on color difference, the CMC (1:1) color difference formula gave better correlation than the CIELAB formula for small color differences in the esthetic dental restorative materials. There were significant differences found between the experiment groups in regard to acceptability of color differences using the CMC (1:1) and CIELAB formulas. The dental hygienist/auxiliaries group proved to be more discriminating in accepting differences between tooth and composite resin restorative material color than patients. The mean 50:50 ΔE replacement points for all subjects were 2.29 and 2.72 color units for the CMC (1:1) and CIELAB formulas, respectively.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)278-285
Number of pages8
JournalColor Research and Application
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dental materials
acceptance
Color
restoration
Group
Composite Resins
Resins
Restoration
Color vision
aesthetics
recipient
Composite materials
dentist
Dental composites
Dental Materials
regression analysis
discrimination
logistics
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Regression analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Chemistry(all)
  • Chemical Engineering(all)

Cite this

Color acceptance of direct dental restorative materials by human observers. / Ragain, James; Johnston, William M.

In: Color Research and Application, Vol. 25, No. 4, 01.01.2000, p. 278-285.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b5f96fc147b143419882ccd93a57479f,
title = "Color acceptance of direct dental restorative materials by human observers",
abstract = "The purposes of this study were to evaluate the CIELAB, CMC (2:1), and CMC (1:1) formulas to identify which provides the best indicator for acceptability of small color differences in the esthetic dental restorative materials, to determine if different groups of observers have different levels of acceptability, and to estimate the color difference that would indicate acceptability between a restoration and an adjacent tooth. The subject population of human observers was divided into four groups, each containing 12 subjects. The composition of the groups were: Group 1, dental auxiliaries and hygienists; Group 2, dentists; Group 3, dental materials scientists; and Group 4, patients. A color vision screening test was administered to each subject to ensure that only observers with normal color vision were evaluated. A composite resin color discrimination test was developed specifically for this study. This test was composed of six sets of discs fabricated from dental composite resin restorative materials. Each set consisted of one standard disc representing tooth color. In each set, six discs representing composite resin restorations were matched to the standard disc for a total of 36 pairings in the test. Color differences between the standard discs and the restoration discs were calculated in CIELAB, CMC (1:1), and CMC (2:1) color units. The subjects were asked to evaluate the composite resin materials as to acceptability of color differences between the disc pairs. The data were analyzed by logistic regression analysis for each observer and by each ΔE formula to generate receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. The areas under these ROC curves were calculated and ranked. ANOVA and Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test were applied to the ranks. In regard to the acceptance of dental restorations based solely on color difference, the CMC (1:1) color difference formula gave better correlation than the CIELAB formula for small color differences in the esthetic dental restorative materials. There were significant differences found between the experiment groups in regard to acceptability of color differences using the CMC (1:1) and CIELAB formulas. The dental hygienist/auxiliaries group proved to be more discriminating in accepting differences between tooth and composite resin restorative material color than patients. The mean 50:50 ΔE replacement points for all subjects were 2.29 and 2.72 color units for the CMC (1:1) and CIELAB formulas, respectively.",
author = "James Ragain and Johnston, {William M.}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/1520-6378(200008)25:4<278::AID-COL8>3.0.CO;2-F",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "278--285",
journal = "Color Research and Application",
issn = "0361-2317",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Color acceptance of direct dental restorative materials by human observers

AU - Ragain, James

AU - Johnston, William M.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - The purposes of this study were to evaluate the CIELAB, CMC (2:1), and CMC (1:1) formulas to identify which provides the best indicator for acceptability of small color differences in the esthetic dental restorative materials, to determine if different groups of observers have different levels of acceptability, and to estimate the color difference that would indicate acceptability between a restoration and an adjacent tooth. The subject population of human observers was divided into four groups, each containing 12 subjects. The composition of the groups were: Group 1, dental auxiliaries and hygienists; Group 2, dentists; Group 3, dental materials scientists; and Group 4, patients. A color vision screening test was administered to each subject to ensure that only observers with normal color vision were evaluated. A composite resin color discrimination test was developed specifically for this study. This test was composed of six sets of discs fabricated from dental composite resin restorative materials. Each set consisted of one standard disc representing tooth color. In each set, six discs representing composite resin restorations were matched to the standard disc for a total of 36 pairings in the test. Color differences between the standard discs and the restoration discs were calculated in CIELAB, CMC (1:1), and CMC (2:1) color units. The subjects were asked to evaluate the composite resin materials as to acceptability of color differences between the disc pairs. The data were analyzed by logistic regression analysis for each observer and by each ΔE formula to generate receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. The areas under these ROC curves were calculated and ranked. ANOVA and Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test were applied to the ranks. In regard to the acceptance of dental restorations based solely on color difference, the CMC (1:1) color difference formula gave better correlation than the CIELAB formula for small color differences in the esthetic dental restorative materials. There were significant differences found between the experiment groups in regard to acceptability of color differences using the CMC (1:1) and CIELAB formulas. The dental hygienist/auxiliaries group proved to be more discriminating in accepting differences between tooth and composite resin restorative material color than patients. The mean 50:50 ΔE replacement points for all subjects were 2.29 and 2.72 color units for the CMC (1:1) and CIELAB formulas, respectively.

AB - The purposes of this study were to evaluate the CIELAB, CMC (2:1), and CMC (1:1) formulas to identify which provides the best indicator for acceptability of small color differences in the esthetic dental restorative materials, to determine if different groups of observers have different levels of acceptability, and to estimate the color difference that would indicate acceptability between a restoration and an adjacent tooth. The subject population of human observers was divided into four groups, each containing 12 subjects. The composition of the groups were: Group 1, dental auxiliaries and hygienists; Group 2, dentists; Group 3, dental materials scientists; and Group 4, patients. A color vision screening test was administered to each subject to ensure that only observers with normal color vision were evaluated. A composite resin color discrimination test was developed specifically for this study. This test was composed of six sets of discs fabricated from dental composite resin restorative materials. Each set consisted of one standard disc representing tooth color. In each set, six discs representing composite resin restorations were matched to the standard disc for a total of 36 pairings in the test. Color differences between the standard discs and the restoration discs were calculated in CIELAB, CMC (1:1), and CMC (2:1) color units. The subjects were asked to evaluate the composite resin materials as to acceptability of color differences between the disc pairs. The data were analyzed by logistic regression analysis for each observer and by each ΔE formula to generate receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. The areas under these ROC curves were calculated and ranked. ANOVA and Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test were applied to the ranks. In regard to the acceptance of dental restorations based solely on color difference, the CMC (1:1) color difference formula gave better correlation than the CIELAB formula for small color differences in the esthetic dental restorative materials. There were significant differences found between the experiment groups in regard to acceptability of color differences using the CMC (1:1) and CIELAB formulas. The dental hygienist/auxiliaries group proved to be more discriminating in accepting differences between tooth and composite resin restorative material color than patients. The mean 50:50 ΔE replacement points for all subjects were 2.29 and 2.72 color units for the CMC (1:1) and CIELAB formulas, respectively.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0039847703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0039847703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/1520-6378(200008)25:4<278::AID-COL8>3.0.CO;2-F

DO - 10.1002/1520-6378(200008)25:4<278::AID-COL8>3.0.CO;2-F

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 278

EP - 285

JO - Color Research and Application

JF - Color Research and Application

SN - 0361-2317

IS - 4

ER -