Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
Original Articles
42-50
AESTETHIC DENTISTRY
EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE DISCOLORATION
ON VITA CLASSICAL SHADE TABS USED DAILY COMPARED
TO NEW REFERENCE SHADE TABS
Dóra Fehér
1a*
, Judit Borbély
1b
, Péter Hermann
1c
¹Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi utca , Budapest, -Hungary
a
DMD, Assistant Lecturer; e-mail: dori.bpg@gmail.com; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3268-2478
b
DMD, PhD, Associate Professor; e-mail: borbely.judit@semmelweis.hu; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3064-8724
c
DMD, PhD, Professor and Head; e-mail: hermann.peter@semmelweis.hu; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9148-0139
Introduction Visual shade selection is still a very popular way of shade selection. This method is subjective
with uncertain factors like the material of the conventional shade tab and restoration is dierent, the
companies put dierent colored materials on the market under the same shade tab code. Besides these
aggravating factors, the shade tabs can go under discoloration over time causing further diculty in proper
shade determination. This study aims to evaluate the extent of discoloration of the regularly used shade tabs
by students in the Department of Prosthodontics.
Methodology Six shades (A1, A2, A3, C2, C3, D2) were selected from nine regularly used VITA Classical shade
guides (54 shade tabs in total) and compared visually and digitally (VITA Easyshade V spectrophotometer)
to a corresponding brand-new reference guide. During the digital comparison L*a*b* values were recorded
and the color dierence (ΔE00) was calculated with the CIEDE2000 formula.
Results 38 out of the 54 shade tabs were above the perceptibility threshold (0.8 ΔE00) and visual color
changes were noticed as well. Unacceptable color dierences ( above 1.8 ΔE00) were found in 19 cases. Only
16 shade tabs did not show visible and clinically relevant measurable discoloration.
Conclusion Conventional shade tabs are worn o and go through discoloration over time. In this study, 70.4
% of the regularly used shade tabs went through noticeable discoloration. It is recommended to keep one
new shade guide to verify the color of the regularly used shade tabs in the dental oce.
ABSTRACT
Prosthodontics; Dental aesthetic; Color; Spectrophotometry; Discoloration.
1. INTRODUCTION
The success of dental aesthetic rehabilitation de-
pends on the correct tooth shade selection. The
color of the restoration is an important factor in
patient satisfaction [1,2]. In most cases, the tooth
shade determination is still carried out visually with
shade tabs. The restoration materials are rapidly
developing, new materials appear on the market
every year until the most frequently used shade
guides were put on the market before the noughties.
(Fig. 1) The VITA Classical shade guide (VC) (before
VITA Lumin Vacuum, VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen,
Germany) in 1956, the Chromoscop (Ivoclar-Vivadent,
Amherst, NY) in 1990, and the VITA 3D Master (VITA
Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany) in 1998
appeared on the market [2-4]. The material, trans-
lucency, and thickness of the restorations and the
conventional shade guides are not always the same.
Furthermore, the dierent companies carry out
dierent shades under the same shade tab code [5].
Besides these aggravating factors that might lead to
unsuccess in shade determination, the shade tabs
are disinfected daily to prevent cross contamination
which can lead to discoloration and worsen the
outcome of the shade determination as well [6,7].
This present study aims to compare the color
parameters of VC shade tabs in daily use at the
Department of Prosthodontics, Semmelweis Uni-
versity with brand-new, reference VC shade tabs
to detect color changes due to the eect of daily
use which might lead to inaccuracy in shade
determination.
KEYWORDS
OPEN ACCESS This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Peer-Reviewed Article
Citation: Fehér D, Borbély J, Hermann P. Evaluation of possible discoloration on VITA classical shade tabs used daily compared to new reference shade
tabs. Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):42-50.
Received: February 14, 2024; Revised: February 25, 2024; Accepted: July 18, 2024; Published: August 08, 2024.
*Corresponding author: Dr. Dóra Fehér, DMD, PhD, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi utca 47,
Budapest, 1088, Hungary, Tel.: +3614591500/59315; Fax: +3614591500; e-mail:
dori.bpg@gmail.com
Copyright: © 2022 the Editorial Council for the Stomatology Edu Journal.
https://doi.org/10.25241/stomaeduj.2024.11(1-2.art.3
Figure 1. New VITA Classical and 3D Master shade guides (left), old VITA
Classical shade guides (right).
42
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
Original Articles
42-50
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Selection of the shade tabs:
Nine layered ceramic VC shade guide (VITA
Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) was selected
randomly from the practice rooms of the Department
of Prosthodontics, Semmelweis University, the shade
tabs are used by students (manufactured 1 guide in
2010, 4 guides in 2012 1 guide in 2013, and 3 guides
in 2015 and all of them are original and produced
by VITA Zahnfabrik). The reference was a brand-new
VC shade guide provided by the manufacturer and
manufactured in 2021. Based on a previous study
the A1, A2, A3, C2, C3, and D2 are the most frequent
natural tooth shades [8]. In this present study, these
six shades were evaluated. (Fig. 2)
Visual shade selection:
To provide standard lighting Smile Lite lamp
(Smile Line, Switzerland) was used for visual shade
determination. The Smile Lite lamp simulated the
optimal 5500 K illumination for the correct tooth
shade selection [9]. (Fig. 3)
The visual shade selection was evaluated on the
fact of the color dierence between the used and
the reference shade tabs but the degree of the color
dierence was not recorded. The observers, two
dental students and one dentist who is an expert in
dental shade selection went through the Ichihara test
before the visual shade selection. (Fig. 4)
Digital shade determination:
For digital comparison, a VITA Easyshade V
spectrophotometer (VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen,
Germany) was used. The standardization of the
lighting conditions was essential because the
spectrophotometer measured the reected light
for this the shade tabs were evaluated in a dark box,
through a little hole the same size as the tip of the
spectrophotometer. To provide a standard position
the shade tab holder was used. In the holder, the
shade tab was positioned centrally with the help of a
custom-made deep-drawn foil case (positioning foil).
The holder with the positioning foil was placed in the
dark box under the hole. (Fig. 5) To standardize the
position of the spectrophotometer an acrylic stand
was made to hold the device.
One point measurement was made on every shade
tab after calibration based on the instructions of the
manufacturer. Every shade tab was measured three
times. The spectrophotometer measures L*a*b*
values. (Fig. 6) The L*a*b* values were recorded in an
Excel le.
Calculating the color dierence:
The ΔE shows the color dierence between the
used and the corresponding reference shade tabs.
The color dierence (ΔE00) was calculated with the
CIEDE2000 formula. [10]
Where ∆L’, ∆C’, and ∆H are the dierences in
lightness, chroma, and hue. ∆R is an interactive
term between hue and chroma dierences. The
weighting functions for the lightness, chroma, and
hue components, respectively shown by SL, SC, SH.
The kL, kc and kh parametric factors are correction
Figure 2. The six evaluated shade from VITA Classical shade tab.
Figure 3. Smile lite lamp (5500 K).
Figure 4. Visual comparison of the used and reference shade tabs.
Figure 5. Positining the shade tabs .
Figure 6. The VITA Easyshade V spectrophotometer measures L*a*b*
values.
Evaluation of Discoloration on Vita Classical Shade tabs
43
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
Original Articles
42-50
terms for experimental conditions. In the present
study kL=kc=kh=1. [11,12] Based on a previous study
wherein the Semmelweis University participated
in the color dierence was not noticeable to half of
the observers between 0 and 0.8 ΔE00 [13]. Between
0.8 and 1.8 ΔE00 half of the observers noticed the
color dierence, but it was considered acceptable,
but above 1.8 ΔE00 the color dierence was una-
cceptable. Correspondingly, in this present study, the
perceptibility threshold (PT50:50%) is dened in 0.8
ΔE00 and the acceptability threshold (AT50:50%) is
in 1.8 ΔE simultaneously. Based on the AT50:50% and
PT50:50% the color dierence of the shade tabs were
divided into three groups: invisible, acceptable, and
unacceptable color dierences. (Fig. 7)
3. RESULTS
The ΔE
00 was calculated based on the L*a*b* values.
(Table 1)
Sample 1 L a b ΔE
A1 83.4 -0.3 14.2 0.8067
83.4 -0.3 14.2 0.8090
83.4 -0.3 14.2 0.8924
Average: 0.8360
A2 81.3 1.8 19.2 1.5699
81.5 1.8 19.4 1.7837
81.6 1.8 19.4 1.9317
Average: 1.7618
A3 76.6 2.1 19.1 3.2300
76.5 2.1 19.3 2.9667
76.5 2.1 19.4 3.0437
Average: 3.0802
C2 73.7 1.3 17.7 0.4014
73.7 1.3 17.7 0.4000
73.6 1.3 17.6 0.4582
Average: 0.4199
C3 70.3 2.4 19.2 1.6633
70.5 2.4 19.2 1.7519
70.4 2.4 19.2 1.6076
Average: 1.6743
D2 77.2 -0.4 12.1 1.1648
77.3 -0.3 12.2 1.0154
77.3 -0.3 12.3 1.3272
Average: 1.1691
Figure 7. The shade tabs are divided into three groups based on the
perceptibility and acceptability thresholds .
Sample 2 L a b ΔE
A1 82.7 -0.2 14.6 0.4355
82.5 -0.2 14.5 0.2686
82.6 -0.2 14.4 0.4900
Average: 0.3981
A2 79 1.7 14.2 0.1855
78.9 1.7 14.2 0.2097
78.9 1.7 14.2 0.1506
Average: 0.1819
A3 83.4 1.2 14.2 0.4972
83.4 1.2 14.2 0.3595
83.4 1.2 14.2 0.4335
Average: 0.4301
C2 83.4 1.6 14.2 0.3174
83.4 1.6 14.2 0.4588
83.4 1.6 14.2 0.2975
Average: 0.3579
C3 83.4 2.5 14.2 0.6130
83.4 2.5 14.2 0.5185
83.4 2.5 14.2 0.3258
Average: 0.4857
D2 83.4 -0.2 14.2 0.4058
83.4 -0.2 14.2 0.3830
83.4 -0.3 14.2 0.7483
Average: 0.5124
Sample 3 L a b ΔE
A1 85.5 -0.2 15.7 2.3754
85.5 -0.2 15.7 2.3530
85.5 -0.2 15.8 2.5210
Average: 2.4165
A2 81 1.9 19.2 1.3592
81.1 1.8 19.1 1.4678
81 1.8 19.1 1.4945
Average: 1.4405
A3 77.2 2.5 20 2.8037
77.1 2.5 20 2.6280
77.2 2.4 20 2.6294
Average: 2.6870
C2 75.3 2 19.9 1.6174
75.2 2 19.9 1.4395
75.4 2 19.9 1.6441
Average: 1.5670
C3 71.2 2.2 19.5 2.4059
71.4 2.2 19.4 2.5026
71.6 2.1 19.3 2.5557
Average: 2.4881
Table 1. Measured L*a*b and calculated ΔE values in the case of all
shades and samples.
Fehér D, et al.
44
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
Original Articles
42-50
Evaluation of Discoloration on Vita Classical Shade tabs
D2 76.7 -0.3 13 0.8542
76.6 -0.2 13.1 0.7166
76.8 -0.3 12.9 1.0045
Average: 0.8584
Sample 4 L a b ΔE
A1 85 -0.3 15.4 2.0014
84.4 -0.3 15.5 1.6376
84.5 -0.3 15.5 1.8471
Average: 1.8287
A2 80.9 1.8 19.2 1.3214
80.9 1.8 19.1 1.3467
80.9 1.8 19.1 1.4346
Average: 1.3676
A3 78 1.5 23 1.2772
78 1.5 23 1.0736
78 1.4 23 1.1257
Average: 1.1588
C2 74.2 1.8 18.9 0.6477
74.5 1.7 18.7 0.5899
74.5 1.7 18.7 0.7283
Average: 0.6536
C3 70.6 2.4 20 2.0451
70.4 2.5 20 1.2750
70.4 2.5 20.1 1.2535
Average: 12557
D2 76.5 0.1 14.1 1.2385
76.7 0.1 14 1.2750
76.4 0.1 14.1 1.2535
Average: 1.2557
Sample 5 L a b ΔE
A1 84.6 -0.7 14.3 1.6811
84.5 -0.8 14.1 1.6676
84.5 -0.8 14.2 1.6853
Average: 1.6780
A2 82.6 1.2 22.8 3.4936
82.6 1.2 22.8 3.5478
82.4 1.1 22.7 3.5342
Average: 3.5252
A3 79.4 1.3 23.2 0.2823
79.5 1.3 23.2 0.1972
79.5 1..3 23.5 0.2548
Average: 0.2447
C2 73.1 1.4 18.5 0.5001
73.4 1.4 18.5 0.5287
73.2 1.4 18.7 0.4785
Average: 0.5024
C3 70.6 2.5 20.6 2.1944
70.8 2.6 20.7 2.3054
71 2.6 20.7 2.3658
Average: 2.2885
D2 76.4 -0.3 13.1 07190
76.3 -0.3 13.1 0.5973
76.4 -0.3 13 0.7673
Average: 0.6946
Sample 6 L a b ΔE
A1 85.1 -0.3 15.4 2.0628
85.1 -0.3 15.4 2.0423
85.1 -0.3 15.4 2.1757
Average: 2.0963
A2 80.7 1.8 19.2 1.2010
80.8 1.8 19.2 1.31.53
80.7 1.8 19.2 1.34.69
Average: 1.2877
A3 77 2.2 18.9 3.1564
77.2 2.3 19.4 2.6884
77 2.2 19 2.9957
Average: 2.9468
C2 73.7 1.7 18.9 0.4481
73.8 1.7 19.4 0.6065
73.7 1.8 19 0.5242
Average: 0.5263
C3 70.3 2.3 19.6 1.7691
70.2 2.4 19.9 1.7182
70.2 2.4 19.9 1.6544
Average: 1.7139
D2 76.5 -0.3 12.8 0.6811
76.4 -0.2 13.2 0.6761
76.5 -0.3 12.8 0.7901
Average: 0.7158
Sample 7 L a b ΔE
A1 84 -0.4 15 1.3043
84.2 -0.3 15.2 1.4443
83.9 -0.4 15 1.3509
Average: 1.3665
A2 82.2 1.6 19.4 2.1999
82.3 1.8 19.7 2.3416
82.1 1.7 19.4 2.2419
Average: 2.2611
A3 76.6 2.2 19.5 3.1270
76.3 2.4 20 2.9797
76.4 2.4 20 3.0293
Average: 3.0453
45
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
Original Articles
42-50
C2 76 1.5 19.3 1.8827
75.8 1.6 19.4 1.5868
76 1.5 19.4 1.8821
Average: 1.7839
C3 70.5 2.2 19.6 1.9351
70.7 2.2 19.6 2.0242
70.5 2.3 19.9 1.8697
Average: 1.9430
D2 75.9 -0.4 12.9 0.5190
75.7 -0.4 12.8 0.4322
75.9 -0.3 13.1 0.5414
Average: 0.4957
Sample 8 L a b ΔE
A1 85.6 0.1 16.2 2.6028
85.6 0.1 16.4 2.6278
85.5 0 16 2.6098
Average: 2.6135
A2 80.3 1.6 18.4 0.8195
80.4 1.7 18.4 0.8772
80.4 1.6 18.3 0.9546
Average: 0.8838
A3 77.9 1.4 22.8 1.3436
78.3 1.4 23.2 0.8669
78.1 1.4 23 1.0554
Average: 1.0886
C2 74.3 1.6 18.8 0.6449
74.5 1.6 18.9 0.6638
74.3 1.7 18.9 0.6470
Average: 0.6519
C3 71.4 2.3 19.4 2.5128
71.2 2.4 19.5 2.3079
71.4 2.2 19.2 2.3714
Average: 2.3973
D2 77 -0.2 12.3 0.9468
77 -0.2 12.3 0.7907
77 -0.2 12.3 1.0962
Average: 0.9446
Sample 9 L a b ΔE
A1 88.6 -0.9 17.3 4.6140
88.6 -0.9 17.3 4.5907
88.6 -0.9 17.4 4.7307
Average: 4.6451
A2 83.1 0.8 18.6 2.9254
83 0.8 18.7 2.8458
83.1 0.7 18.3 2.9927
Average: 2.9213
A3 77.9 1.6 23 1.3655
77.9 1.6 23 1.1637
77.8 1.6 23 1.2975
Average: 1.2756
C2 73.1 1.6 18.7 0.4976
73.4 1.6 18.6 0.4972
73.2 1.6 18.7 0.4051
Average: 0.4666
C3 73.1 2.3 20.7 3.9351
73.1 2.3 20.9 3.9202
73.1 2.3 20.9 3.8479
Average: 3.9011
D2 78.6 -0.1 13.8 2.2484
78.5 -0.1 13.8 2.0854
78.5 -0.1 13.8 2.2939
Average: 2.2092
Only 16 shade tabs were under the 0.8 ΔE values.
38 shade tabs were above 0.8 ΔE and 19 of the 38
exceeded the 1.8 ΔE values. (Table 2)
Table 2. The number of shade tabs above 0.8 ΔE00 (PT50:50%) and 1.8 ΔE00 (AT50:50%) in the case of six shades.
A1
9 Samples
A2
9 Samples
A3
9 Samples
C2
9 Samples
C3
9 Samples
D2
9 Samples
All
54 Samples
Under 0.8
ΔE
8 8 7 2 8 5 38
Above 1.8
ΔE
5 3 4 0 6 1 19
Fehér D, et al.
46
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
Original Articles
42-50
Evaluation of Discoloration on Vita Classical Shade tabs
The most deviations were found in the case of A1, A2,
and C3, eight out of nine shade tabs were above the
PT50:50% in all of these cases. In the case of C3 six
shade tabs were also above the AT50:50%,in the case
of A1 and A2 ve and three shade tabs were found
unacceptable (above AT50:50%) color dierence.
Categorization and Fisher’s exact test equivalent to
the Chi-square test were done. The test showed that
in the combined groups A1, A2, and C3 signicantly
(p=0.00056) worse outcome was noticeable than
other shades in total. The three examined categories
were combined on the basis that they have the
lowest proportion of ΔE00 results indicating invisible
color dierence. (Figs. 8,9)
The ΔE
00 of nine samples compared to the reference
in every six shades are shown in Fig. 10. The percepti-
bility and acceptability thresholds are marked with
an orange line. During the visual comparison, the
observers found visible color dierences in 38 cases.
4. DISCUSSION
Evaluation of the method of visual shade selection
is a popular topic in dentistry. The most commonly
used shade guide for visual shade selection is still the
VC shade guide which contains 16 shades [14-16]. In
dental practices to prevent cross-contamination the
shade guides are disinfected regularly, [17] which
can lead to changes in the shade [6,18]. Al Amri et
al. evaluated the eects of the disinfectant liquid on
VITA Lumin shade tabs with VITA Easyshade. In their
study, 80% of the randomly selected shade tabs
showed higher ΔE values than the perceptibility
threshold [19]. In another previous study the eect
of three disinfectants - Cavicide, Asepticare TB, and
Sporicidin – was evaluated with a VITA Easyshade
spectrophotometer on VC shade tabs [17]. The study
evaluated two years of usage and based on the
results the shade tabs did not undergo color changes
in this period. Arrejaie et al simulated the eects of
one, two and three years of disinfection with three
dierent disinfectants on VITA Toothguide 3D Master
shade guides. The measurements were carried out
with A 7000A Colour Eye (X-rite, Grand Rapid, MI,
USA) spectrophotometer [20].
Clinically signicant color change was not described
even after the three-year simulation, but the
number of simulated disinfectant cycles was
less than in other similar articles Hombesh et al
evaluated the survivability of VITA 3D Master shade
guides. The measurements were carried out with a
spectrophotometer and two years were simulated.
The test group was treated with isopropyl alcohol
(70%), for the control group distilled water was used.
A signicant color dierence was found between the
control and the test group but without any clinical
signicance [6]. Alshetri et al treated the VC shade
tabs with a disinfectant containing 70% ethanol and
isopropyl alcohol. The potential color dierence after
the disinfection was evaluated digitally (Shade Eye
NCC colorimeter) and visually [18]. Discoloration on
the shade tabs was found in the case of 17.8% after
two years of simulation, after three years it was raised
to 28.9%. Pohjola et al found increased L* (lightness)
and c*(chroma) values after two and three years of
simulated disinfection with Cavicide disinfectant
[21]. Alsethri and Pohjola both recommend keeping
one reference shade guide in the dental oce
to check the color of the frequently used shade
guides regularly [18,21]. In this present study the
potential discoloration of the shade tabs - used
by students in the Department of Prosthodontics,
Semmelweis University - was evaluated due to
everyday usage. During the visual comparison a
visible color dierence was found on 38 shade tabs.
The color dierence was not commeasurable, but
the transparency of the edges was less visible on the
used shade tabs compared to the new reference. (Fig.
11,12) Regarding the C2 shade tabs the best result
was observed because discoloration was only found
in two cases. (Fig. 13)
Figure 8. Distribution of ΔE00 categories defined based on the
perceptibility and acceptability thresholds in groups formed based on
shades and combined according to the similarity of the distribution.
Fisher's exact test.
Figure 9. Distribution of ΔE00 categories defined based on the
perceptibility and acceptability thresholds in groups formed based on
shades. Fisher’s exact test.
Figure 10. The ΔE00 values of the shade tabs compared to the reference
separated to shades. The orange line shows the perceptibility (0.8 ΔE) and
acceptability thresholds (1.8 ΔE).
47
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
During the spectrophotometric digital measurement,
38 out of 54 shade tabs showed higher values than
0.8 ΔE00 (perceptibility threshold) and belonged to
the visible color dierence group. The most frequent
shade tabs were A1, A2, and C3 shade tabs in the
visible color dierence group. This can be attributed
to the more frequent use of the mentioned shades
and the increased number of disinfection cycles.
The ΔE00 was above 1.8 in the case of 19 shade
tabs, so 35.2% of the tested tabs belonged to the
unacceptable color dierence group. These tabs were
considered clinically useless due to the unacceptable
discoloration. The most frequent shades in the
unacceptable color dierence group were the A1
and C3. Only 29.6% of the tested shade tabs did not
show noticeable color dierences during the digital
comparison. (Fig. 14)
CONCLUSION
35.2 % of the tested VC shade tabs underwent
unacceptable color changes. The present study
demonstrated that the shade tabs were worn out,
and discolored over time. The discoloration was
even detected visually. The color changes might
aect the color of the nal restoration and lead to
esthetic failures. The shade tabs used daily need
to be checked regularly and have to be replaced if
discoloration is detected.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
DF: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing-
Original draft, Visualization, Project Administration JB:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Review and Editing,
Supervision PH: Conceptualization, Writing-Review and Editing,
Supervision
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors declare that there is no conict of interests.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors want to thank Dr. László Kardos for the statistical
evaluation.
Figure 11. D2 shade tabs. Reference shade tab on the left side.
Discolored shade tabs on the middle and on the right side. For the upper
pictures a cross polarization filter was used to remove glare.
Figure 12. The color difference is visible with the naked eye. The
discolored shade tabs on the right side and the reference shade tabs on the
left side. For the upper pictures a cross polarization filter was used to
remove glare.
Figure 13. C2 shade tabs reached the best results, in this photo
discoloration was not visible. For the upper pictures a cross polarization
filter was used to remove glare.
Figure 14. Percentage distribution of invisible, acceptable and
unacceptable color differences among the tested shade tabs.
Fehér D, et al.
42-50
Original Articles
48
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
Evaluation of Discoloration on Vita Classical Shade tabs
42-50
Original Articles
1. Tin-Oo MM, Saddki N, Hassan N. Factors inuencing patient
satisfaction with dental appearance and treatments they desire
to improve aesthetics. BMC Oral Health. 2011 Feb 23;11:6. doi:
10.1186/1472-6831-11-6.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
2. Kinra MS, Goyal M, Handa A, et al. Shade Selection for Fixed
Partial Dentures. Kasmera. 2015;09(01):15-25.
3. Sulaiman AO, Adebayo GE. Most frequently selected shade
for advance restoration delivered in a tertiary hospital facility in
South Western Nigeria. Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 2019;17(2):157-161.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
4. Zenthöfer A, Wiesberg S, Hildenbrandt A, et al. Selecting VITA
classical shades with the VITA 3D-master shade guide. Int J Pros-
thodont. 2014;27(4):376-382. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3770.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
5. Alnusayri MO, Sghaireen MG, Mathew M, et al. Shade selection
in esthetic dentistry: a review. Cureus. 2022;14(3):e23331. doi:
10.7759/cureus.23331.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar WoS
6. Hombesh MN, Praveen B, Sinha HV, et al. Two years surviva-
bility of VITA 3D master shade matching guides after disinfec-
tion with isopropyl alcohol: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent.
2019;22(3):275-280. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_573_18.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus
7. KHodarahmi E, Salari M, Azizi A, Lawaf S. Discoloration of Vita
classical shade guide by glutaraldehyde disinfectant. J Res Dent
Maxillofac Sci 2021;6(1):4-13. doi: jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-
293-en.html
Google Scholar Scopus
8. Elamin HO, Abubakr NH, Ibrahim YE. Identifying the tooth
shade in group of patients using Vita Easyshade. Eur J Dent.
2015;9(2):213-217. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.156828.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus
9. Clary JA, Ontiveros JC, Cron SG, Paravina RD. Inuence of light
source, polarization, education, and training on shade matching
quality. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(1):91-97. doi: 10.1016/j.pros-
dent.2015.12.008.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus
10. Mokrzycki WS, Tatol M. Colour dierence∆ E - a survey. Mach
Graph Vis. 2011;20(4):383-411.
Google Scholar
11. Luo M, Cui G, Rigg B. The development of the CIE 2000 co-
lour-dierence formula: CIEDE2000. Color Research & Application.
2001;26(5):340-350. doi: 10.1002/col.1049
CrossRef Google Scholar Scopus WoS
12. ISO/TR 28642: Dentistry - Guidance on color measurement.
Vernier, CH: ISO; 2016.
13. Paravina RD, Ghinea R, Herrera LJ, et al. Color dierence
thresholds in dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27 Suppl 1:S1-9.
doi: 10.1111/jerd.12149.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
14. Hassel AJ, Zenthöfer A, Corcodel N, et al. Determina-
tion of VITA Classical shades with the 3D-Master shade
guide. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(3-4):721-726. doi:
10.3109/00016357.2012.715197.
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
15. Igiel C, Weyhrauch M, Wentaschek S, et al. Dental color
matching: a comparison between visual and instrumental me-
thods. Dent Mater J. 2016;35(1):63-69. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2015-006.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
16. Paravina RD. Performance assessment of dental shade guides.
J Dent. 2009;37 Suppl 1:e15-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.02.005.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
17. Huang PY, Masri R, Romberg E, Driscoll CF. The eect of
various disinfectants on dental shade guides. J Prosthet Dent.
2014;112(3):613-617. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.04.006.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
18. Alshethri SE. Evaluation of color changes in the Vitapan Classi-
cal Shade Guide after disinfection. Oper Dent. 2014;39(3):317-324.
doi: 10.2341/13-125-L.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
19. Alamri MD. The eect of disinfecting solutions on the color of
porcelain shade guides. Egypt Dent J. 2008 Apr;54(2):1057-1066.
Google Scholar
20. ArRejaie AS. The eect of chemical disinfectants on the
color of a porcelain shade guide. Int J Health Sci (Qassim).
2014;8(3):299-304. doi: 10.12816/0023982.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed WoS
21. Pohjola RM, Hackman ST, Browning WD. Evaluation of a
standard shade guide for color change after disinfection. Quin-
tessence Int. 2007;38(8):671-676.
Full text links PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
REFERENCES
CV
Dr. Dóra Fehér is a PhD student andbecame a prosthodontist specialist in 2022. She has been working in the Department of
Prosthodontics, at the Semmelweis University since 2019. Her PhD is about the possibilities of shade reproduction andinvestigates
the shade matching of the shade tabs and restorative materials and the color stability and discoloration of conventional shade
guides. Its aim is to provide patients with the best aesthetic outcome by reproducing the correct shade and translucency with
modern ceramic materials. Besides her research activities, she teaches prosthodontics at the university for dental students and
participates in the education of post-graduation students, dental assistants, and dental technicians as well.
Dóra FEHÉR
DMD, PhD
Department of Prosthodontics
Faculty of Dentistry
Semmelweis University
Budapest, Hungary
49
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
42-50
Fehér D, et al.
Original Articles
Questions
1. What are the most commonly used shade guides?
qa. Vita Classical and Vita 3D Master;
qb. Vita Classical and Ivoclar Universal A-D shade guide;
qc. Vita 3D Master and Vita Bleachguide 3D Master;
qd. None of the above.
2. The visual shade selection is:
qa. Objective;
qb. Not used anymore;
qc. Subjective;
qd. Always very precise.
3. What is the color temperature of the Smile Lite lamp?
qa. 1000 K;
qb. 65000 K;
qc. 10000 K;
qd. 5500 K.
4. Please select the true statement:
qa. The Vita Easyshade V spectrophotometer measures the reected light;
qb. For visual shade selection, the standardized light conditions are not important;
qc. The VITA Easyshade spectrophotometer is not able to measure color parameters like L*a*b or L*c*h;
qd. The color dierence is measurable with the Vita Easyshade spectrophotometer.
50
