Effect of Porcelain Shade and Application Time on Shade

Reproduction
Salma Ahmed Bahannan, BDS, MS, ABP, & Mohamed Abdelmageed Awad, BDS, MSc, PhD
Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, King Abdulaziz University Faculty of Dentistry, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Keywords
Color; ceramic; esthetics; restoration;
technician.
Correspondence
Salma Bahannan, Oral and Maxillofacial
Prosthodotics Department, King Abdulaziz
University, P.O. Box 80209, Jeddah 21589,
Saudi Arabia. E-mail: sbahannan@kau.edu.sa
Presented at The 4th King Abdulaziz
University Dental Conference 29 October
2015, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
This project was funded by Deanship of
Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, under grant no.
1433/165/500.
The authors deny any conflicts of interest.
Accepted March 23, 2016
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12498
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the variability in shade reproduction of metal ceramic restora-
tions fabricated by different laboratory technicians at different fabrication times.
Materials and Methods: One hundred thirty five metal copings for metal ceramic
restorations were fabricated with a standardized method and distributed among three
dental laboratory technicians (n = 45). Each technician was requested to match three
different shade specifications including 2L1.5, 3M2, 4R2.5 shade tabs of 3D Master
shade guide following the manufacturer’s instructions. The technicians were instructed
to build up each shade 15 times using the same porcelain at three time periods namely
first thing in the morning (T1 ), middle of the work day (T2 ), and at the end of the work
day (T3 ) (n = 5). Color difference (࢞E) was determined with a spectrophotometer.
Each restoration was measured and recorded nine times. Data were tabulated and
statistically analyzed using a univariate general linear model with Scheffe post hoc
test, and one-way ANOVA at 5% level of significance
Results: The color difference (࢞E) was significantly different among technicians,
time of application, and shade matched. Technician 1 demonstrated good color repro-
duction for all shades in T1 . That was the same as technician 2 for shades 3M2 and
4R2.5, but the lighter shade (2L1.5) was better in T2 and T3 . Technician 3 had better
results at T3 . The lowest mean value of ࢞E was calculated with technician 3 while the
highest mean value was with technician 2. T2 was associated with higher ࢞E values
in contrast to the other two times for technicians 1 and 2, while T3 was associated
with lower ࢞E values for technicians 2 and 3.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the shade
reproduction is affected by the time of porcelain application. The ability to repro-
duce the target shade differed among laboratory technicians. No specific time can be
considered for all technicians to reproduce the shades with more accuracy.

Effective communication between clinician and laboratory
technician is the cornerstone of successful restorations. The
ability to produce esthetically successful restorations depends
mainly on proper shade matching and shade reproduction.1
Subjectivity involved in assessing color has been one of the
most difficult remaining barriers to accurate communication.
Color matching is complicated by individual differences in
color perception lighting conditions, inadequate range of avail-
able shades, and different ability of color discrimination.2,3
Hammad2 showed that prosthodontists demonstrated signifi-
cantly superior intrarater repeatability compared with general
practitioners when the Vita Lumin Vacuum shade guide was
used, while there was no significant difference in intrarater re-
peatability for prosthodontists and general practitioners when
the Vitapan 3D-Master shade guide was used.2
New technology enhances the predictability of achieving ac-
curately matched restorations. Electronic devices have been
used as an attempt to overcome problems with visual matching
in dentistry. Spectrophotometers and colorimeters allow quan-
titative, rapidly obtained, and objective assessment of dental
shades. In addition, instrumental readings enable communica-
tion to be more uniform and precise.4-6 The theoretical benefits
of using spectrophotometers are that the measurements are not
affected by human biases, subjectivity, vision deficiencies, or an
unsteady light source.7-11 Such devices provide measurements
in CIE LAB units (Commission International del’Eclairage L*
a* b* color system), which, when analyzed mathematically,
can compare the color parameters of different objects. In the
CIE LAB system, L* represents the lightness of a color in the
black-white axis, a* defines color on the green-red axis, and

Journal of Prosthodontics 27 (2018) 227–231 

C 2016 by the American College of Prosthodontists 227
Porcelain Shade, Application Time, and Shade Reproduction
b* defines color along the blue-yellow axis. As stated before,
the CIE L* a* b* color system is commonly used in perceptual
color assessment because of its approximate visually uniform
coverage of the color space.12 In this color space, color differ-
ence (࢞E) between two objects (L*1 , a*1 , b*1 and L*2 , a*2 ,
b*2 ) can be calculated according to the following formula:12
 2  2  2 1/2
E = L ∗ 1 − L ∗ 2 + a∗ 1 − a∗ 2 + b∗ 1 − b∗ 2
Spectrophotometers measure and record the amount of vis-
ible radiant energy reflected by the teeth one wavelength at a
time for each hue, value, and chroma present in the entire visible
spectrum.12 They use reflectance technology because they only
calculate the quantity and quality of light not absorbed by the
measured tooth. The reflected light from the image is captured
at a 0° angle of incidence. A specific and unique fingerprint of
the image is then recorded at 10-nm intervals throughout the
whole visible light spectrum (400 to 800 nm).6 Several stud-
ies have claimed that spectrophotometric shade assessment was
able to produce a higher incidence of selecting the closest shade
with a minimum color difference when compared to the visual
shade assessment method used by clinicians, dental students,
and subjects.5,13
Errors associated with shade reproduction have been docu-
mented in the literature,12,14-19 and include differences in ce-
ramic alloys,14 thickness of substuctures,12,15 porcelain system
brand,12,14,16 powder/liquid ratio,17 and subsequent porcelain
firing.18 It has been reported that the shade of metal ceramic
specimens is affected by the type of base metal alloy sub-
structure and type of overlying porcelain system.14 Jarad et al
claimed that changes in enamel porcelain thickness from 0.6 to
0.3 mm increase the chromatic shades.19
Although many investigations have examined materials, pro-
duction techniques, manipulation variables, and their effect on
shade production, the effect of human variability and time of
production is not known. The null hypothesis of the present
study was that the application of porcelain by different techni-
cians at different times would not affect the accuracy of shade
reproduction. The purpose of the study was to determine the
variability in shade reproduction of metal ceramic restorations
fabricated by different laboratory technicians at different fabri-
cation times.
Materials and methods
Standard metal ceramic preparation was done on a maxillary
right central incisor in a typodont jaw model (Melamine tooth;
Columbia Dentoform Corporation, Long Island, NY). Nine sec-
ondary impressions (poly[vinyl siloxane], Master Dent; Den-
tonics Inc, Monroe, NC) were made and poured using extra
hard stone (Hardrock; Whip Mix, Dortmund, Germany) to pro-
duce nine working casts and dies. Fifteen nickel-chromium
ceramometal alloy copings (Wiron 99; Bego, Bremen, Ger-
many) were fabricated for each die. One hundred thirty five
metal copings for metal ceramic restorations were made by
one technician for standardization. The casts with their copings
were numbered and randomly distributed among three den-
tal laboratory technicians (n = 45). The authors of the current
study were blinded to the identity of the technicians. They were
228 Journal of Prosthodontics 27 (2018) 227–231 
Bahannan and Awad
unknown to the researchers, and the evaluation was conducted
on the samples they produced, and not on the technicians them-
selves. Ethical review board approval was not sought. Each
technician was requested to build up the restorations using
the same porcelain material (VITA VM 13; Vita Zahnfabrik,
Bad Sackingen, Germany) to match three different shade spec-
ifications, 2L1.5, 3M2, and 4R2.5 shade tabs of 3D Master
shade guide (Vita Zahnfabrik) following the manufacturer’s in-
structions. The technicians were instructed to build each shade
15 times. In addition, they were asked to reproduce each shade
at three different times: first thing in the morning (T1 ); middle
of the work day, after lunch hour (T2 ); and at the end of the
work day (T3 ) (n = 5). The porcelain applications were done
under the daylight illuminator (KaVo Dental GmbH, Bismar-
ckring, Germany) with correlated color temperature of 5400
K, work block 2400 Lux, and color reproduction factor of RA
90-100.
Color difference (࢞E) was determined using an Easyshade
Compact device (Vita Zahnfabrik) according to the manufac-
turer’s instructions. The mode of the device was adjusted to
use the target shade as a standard before measuring the restora-
tion. The machine was calibrated after each use. Two examiners
performed the procedure. One measured the color difference,
and the other registered the data. There was no separate control
group, because the Easyshade device mode was adjusted to use
the target shade as a standard before measuring the restoration
(measuring control). During measurements, the instrument’s tip
was perpendicular and in complete contact with the restoration
in the middle third of the labial surface of the restoration. Each
restoration was measured and recorded nine times.
Data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using SPSS
v.20. The effects of technician, shade, and time on ࢞E values
were investigated. Univariate general linear model with Scheffe
post hoc test was used. The level of significance was set at
p ࣘ 0.05, and all tests were two-sided.
Results
The color difference (࢞E) was significantly different among
technicians (p < 0.01), time of application (p < 0.01), and
shades (p <0.01) (Table 1). Multiple comparisons of ࢞E of the
metal ceramic crowns for each technician at different times are
presented in Figure 1. Technician 1 demonstrated good color
reproduction in T1 . He had the lowest ࢞E (1.50) early in the
morning, and the highest ࢞E (2.78) at noon (T2 ). There was
significant difference in color reproduction difference (࢞E)
among all shades at different times (p < 0.05), except between
T1 and T3 for shades 2L1.5 (p = 0.599) and 3M2 (p = 0.965)
and also between T1 and T2 for shade 4R2.5 (p = 0.877).
Similarly, technician 2 worked better in T1 for shades 3M2
and 4R2.5, but the lighter shade (2L1.5) was better in T2 and
T3 . There was significant difference in ࢞E among all shades
at different times (p < 0.001), except between T2 and T3 for
shades 2L1.5 (p = 0.087). Technician 3 had better results at T3
with the darker shades (3M2 and 4R2.5). There was significant
difference in ࢞E among all shades at different times (p < 0.01),
except between T1 and both times T2 and T3 for shade 2L1.5
(p = 0.151 and 0.319, respectively), and between T2 and T3 for
shade 3M2 (p = 0.975).
C 2016 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Bahannan and Awad Porcelain Shade, Application Time, and Shade Reproduction

Table 1 One-way ANOVA for ࢞E values by technician, time, and shade

Significant comparisons
Mean SD 95% CI for mean F p by Scheffe test

Overall 2.11 0.84 2.06 2.16

Technician 1 2.17 0.84 2.08 2.25 29.12 <0.01∗ 1 vs. 3
2 2.30 0.89 2.21 2.38 2 vs. 3
3 1.87 0.72 1.80 1.94
Time 1 2.16 0.80 2.08 2.24 18.01 <0.01∗ 1 vs. 3
2 2.25 0.96 2.16 2.35 2 vs. 3
3 1.92 0.70 1.85 1.98
Shade 2L1.5 1.99 0.84 1.91 2.07 6.95 <0.01∗ 2L1.5 vs. 3M2
3M2 2.20 0.79 2.13 2.28
4R2.5 2.13 0.88 2.05 2.22

*Statistical significance.

Figure 1 Mean color difference (E) by technician, shade, and applica-

tion time.
With lighter shade 1, 2L1.5 (Fig 2), there was significant
difference in color difference (࢞E) among all technicians at
different times (p < 0.001), except between technicians 2 and
3 at T2 (p = 0.467) and technicians 1 and 2 at T3 (p = 0.819).
In shade 2 (3M2), there was no significant difference in ࢞E
among technicians at T1 (p = 0.09, 0.80, and 0.30, respectively),
while there was significant difference among them at T2 and T3
(p < 0.001), except between technicians 1 and 2 at T3
(p = 0.155). Regarding shade 3 (4R2.5), there was signifi-
cant difference in ࢞E among all technicians at different times
(p < 0.001), except between technician 1 and 3 at T2
(p = 0.878).
Figure 3 represents the two-way interaction of color repro-
duction by technicians and time. In T1 , there was significant
difference between technician 1 on one side and technicians 2
and 3 on the other side (p < 0.001), in favor of technician
1, while for times T2 and T3 there were significant differ-
ences between technician 3 and each of technicians 1 and 2
(p < 0.001) in favor of technician 3. Regarding technician 2,
there was significant difference between T3 and each of times
T1 and T2 (p < 0.001). The lowest mean of ࢞E values was
Figure 2 Mean color difference (E) by shades, technicians, and
application time.
with technician 3, and highest mean with technician 2, with
a significant difference between technician 3 and each of the
other technicians (p < 0.001). T2 was associated with signifi-
cantly higher ࢞E values in contrast to the other two times for
technicians 1 and 2. T3 was associated with significantly lower
࢞E values in contrast to the other two times for technicians 2
and 3.
Discussion
The current study was conducted to assess the ability to re-
produce different acceptable shades at different times. The
null hypothesis of the study was rejected since the applica-
tion of porcelain at different times did affect the accuracy of
shade reproduction. All technicians were affected by time of
application, although they used the same porcelain system (Vita
Zahnfabrik), same illuminator (KaVo Dental GmbH), and stan-
dardized metal substructure (Wiron 99).

Journal of Prosthodontics 27 (2018) 227–231 

C 2016 by the American College of Prosthodontists 229
Porcelain Shade, Application Time, and Shade Reproduction
Figure 3 Two-way interaction of color reproduction by technicians and
time.
Because we used the instrumental method, all restorations
were measured in the middle third of the labial surface, and
we considered other factors that could affect the results. It has
been reported that the accuracy of shade using instrumental
methods is affected by the location of the tip of the instrument.
The aperture of the spectrophotometer (Easyshade Compact
device) is about 3 to 4 mm. The authors felt that there was no
need to make a jig for placing the aperture, since it was small
and could be placed in the center of the restoration accurately.
Having a small aperture was considered an advantage because
it measures a specific area of the restoration.20 A wide aperture
will provide the average area color, which may not represent
the color array.20
The selected shades (2L1.5, 3M2, 4R2.5) were chosen to
investigate the most reproducible shades with greater variability
among them. These shades represented different hues, chroma,
and values. We believe that the shade itself has an influence on
the accuracy of the shade production. Although technicians 1
and 3 mastered all shades, they did better with lighter shades
(2L1.5, 3M2). On the other hand, technician 2 had better results
with the dark shade (4R2.5).
Comparing the work of the technicians, it was noticed that
not all technicians had the same technical skills, although there
was no significant difference among the samples of each tech-
nician in each specific time. Both technician 1 and 3 had low
࢞E (1.3, 1.4). Technician 2 had the highest color difference
(࢞E = 3.4). There was a significant difference among tech-
nicians (p < 0.001), which is in agreement with Douglas and
Brewer, who found that the ability of technicians to reproduce
the target shades differed among laborateries.21 Several factors,
including porcelain batch, type, shade, and layer thickness, in-
fluence the technicians’ skills in obtaining correct shades.19,22
Some authors have claimed the difference in ࢞E is due to using
high-fusing porcelain in making the shade tabs with no metal
backing, resulting in unrealistic representation.23 Others found
that any changes in thickness of the porcelain layers within
the clinically available space affect the overall shade of the
restoration.20
The human eye is considered an excellent shade detector,20
although the color of the tooth presents an interaction among
polychromatic, multi-layered hard and soft dental tissues.23,24
Eye fatigue could affect the quality of the work.5 Therefore, it
230 Journal of Prosthodontics 27 (2018) 227–231 
Bahannan and Awad
should be considered during shade matching and reproduction.
Several papers indicate that shade matching can be improved
through education and training.25,26 However, no studies have
been found similar to our study. No one has yet related time
of shade production to quality of the color reproduction. The
results of our study indicate that regardless of the technicians’
skills, the application time did affect the final result of the
shade. In the current study, we found that the worst time for
color reproduction for technicians 1 and 2 was in the middle
of the day (T2 ), while the best time was early in the morning
(T1 ). In contrast, technician 3 worked better in the afternoon
(T3 ), but not early in the morning (T1 ). This might be related
to the time of color reproduction, which could be a factor, and
it depends on each technician.
Johnston and Kao claimed that a color difference of
࢞E > 3.7 is considered a poor match.27 In our study, we
considered ࢞E > 3.0 to be poor, according to the Easyshade
spectrophotometer manufacturer’s instructions. Although there
was significant color difference at different times, they were
within the acceptable range (࢞E < 3.0). Although the number
of technicians is one of the limitations of the study, the techni-
cians are the only ones who can determine which time is best
for them to reproduce shades with more accuracy.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions
were drawn:
1. The proper shade reproduction is affected by the time of
porcelain application.
2. The ability to reproduce the target shade differed among
laboratory technicians.
3. There is no specific time for all technicians to reproduce
the correct shades; however, the afternoon time (1 pm)
was the worst time for most of them.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Deanship of Scientific Research
(DSR) at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
for the technical and financial support. The authors would like
to express their sincere thanks to Professor Mona Hassan in
King Abdulaziz University for her assistance in the statistical
analysis, and Dr. Lina Bahanan and Dr. Nada Shokair for their
assistance in collecting the laboratory data.
References
1. Wang P, Wei J, Li Q, et al: Evaluation of an optimized shade
guide made from porcelain powder mixtures. J Prosthet Dent
2014;112:1553-1558
2. Hammad IA: Intrarater repeatability of shade selections with two
shade guides. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:50-53
3. Vehashinayim RH: Tooth color matching systems and
communication with dental laboratory in indirect restorations.
2011 update. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 2012;29:28-34, 64
4. Wee AG, Monaghan P, Johnston WM: Variation in color between
intended matched shade and fabricated shade of dental porcelain.
J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:657-666
C 2016 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Bahannan and Awad
5. Bahannan SA: Shade matching quality among dental students
using visual and instrumental methods. J Dent 2014;42:48-52
6. Chu SJ: Clinical steps to predictable color management in
aesthetic restorative dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 2007;51:473-
485
7. Stevenson B: The colour measurement of ceramic samples using
a commercial colour measuring device and a laboratory
spectrophotometer. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK, 2009.
8. Ahmad I, Habib R, Azad A: Scientific and artistic principles of
tooth shade selection: a review. Pak Oral Dent J 2011;31:222-226
9. Joiner A: Tooth colour: a review of the literature. J Dent
2004;32:3-12
10. Klemetti E, Matela AM, Haag P, et al: Shade selection
performed by novice dental professionals and colorimeter. J Oral
Rehabil 2006;33:31-35
11. Lath DL, Wildgoose DG, Guan H, et al: Visual whiteness
ranking of a Vitapan 3D Master shade guide by untrained
assessors. J Clin Dent 2006;17:10-13
12. Ghulman MA, Awad MA: Color variation between matched and
fabricated shades of different ceramics. J Prosthodont
2013;22:472-477
13. AlSaleh S, Labban M, AlHariri M, et al: Evaluation of self shade
matching ability of dental students using visual and instrumental
means. J Dent 2012;40s:e82-e87
14. Anitha KV, Dhanraj M, Haribabu R: Comparison of the effect of
different ceramic alloys and porcelain systems upon the color of
metal—ceramic restorations: an in vitro study. J Indian
Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:296-302
15. Omar HI, Atta O, El-Mowafy O: Difference between selected
and obtained shade for metal-ceramic crown systems. Oper Dent
2008;33:502-507
16. Kourtis SG, Tripodakis AP, Doukoudakis AA:
Spectrophotometric evaluation of the optical influence of
Journal of Prosthodontics 27 (2018) 227–231 
C 2016 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Porcelain Shade, Application Time, and Shade Reproduction
different metal alloys and porcelains in the metal-ceramic
complex. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:477-485
17. Zhang Y, Griggs JA, Benham AW: Influence of powder/liquid
mixing ratio on porosity and translucency of dental porcelains. J
Prosthet Dent 2004;91:128-135
18. Yilmaz B, Ozçelik TB, Wee AG: Effect of repeated firings on the
color of opaque porcelain applied on different dental alloys. J
Prosthet Dent 2009;101:395-404
19. Jarad FD, Moss BW, Youngson CC, et al: The effect of enamel
porcelain thickness on color and the ability of a shade guide to
prescribe chroma. Dent Mater 2007;23:454-460
20. Dozić A, Kleverlaan CJ, Meegdes M, et al: The influence
of porcelain layer thickness on the final shade of
ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:563-570
21. Douglas RD, Brewer JD: Variability of porcelain color
reproduction by commercial laboratories. J Prosthet Dent
2003;90:339-346
22. Sorensen JA, Torres TJ: Improved color matching of
metal-ceramic restorations. Part III: innovations in porcelain
application. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:1-7
23. Johnston WM: Color measurement in dentistry. J Dent
2009;37:e2-e6
24. Paravina RD, Powers JM: Esthetic Color Training in Dentistry
(ed 1). St. Louis, Elsevier, 2004
25. Paravina RD: Dental Color Matcher, an Online Educational and
Training Program for Esthetic Dentistry. 2016. Available online
at www.scadent.org/news/free-color-training. Accessed February
24, 2016
26. Chu SJ, Devigus A, Paravina RD, et al: Fundamentals of Color:
Shade Matching and Communication in Esthetic Dentistry
(ed 2). Hanover Park, IL, Quintessence, 2011
27. Johnston WM, Kao EC: Assessment of appearance match by
visual observation and clinical colorimeter. J Dent Res
1989;68:819-822
231