Abstract:Purpose Many factors can affect the aesthetics of dental restorations, including the instrumental techniques used in shade matching, and can lead to clinical failure. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of using the cross‐polarization digital photograph technique and intraoral scanners for shade matching, and also evaluate the effect of the level of clinical experience on shade matching success. Materials and Methods Color analysis was performed on the maxillary right central incisors of 10 subject models with Vita Easyshade. Intraoral scanning was performed 10 times on each model using TRIOS 3 and color analysis was performed from the same spot. Then cross‐polarized and non‐polarized photographs of the models were taken with standard settings using a gray reference card. Each shade tab of the Vita System 3D‐Master scale was also photographed with two different polarization techniques. Four groups (n = 12), including prosthodontics faculty staff, postgraduate students in prosthodontics, undergraduate students, and dental technicians matched the shade tabs and the model photographs obtained with both techniques on a standardized computer screen. Finally, the color differences between the shade tabs and maxillary central incisors matched by observers from four different groups were recorded using a colorimeter, Classic Color Meter, in accordance with the CIELAB system and CIEDE2000 (ΔE00) values were calculated. The data were compared with the acceptability threshold of 1.80 for ΔE00. The data obtained from the observers were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 Release Notes program. Independent Samples t‐test was used to compare normally distributed data according to binary groups. The level of significance was 0.05. Results A statistically significant difference was found in the shade matching on photographs taken with different techniques in postgraduate students (p = 0.02). Also, there was a statistically significant difference in success between the groups that made shade matching based on photographs obtained with the non‐polarization technique (p = 0.00). The undergraduate students achieved statistically significantly lower results than all other groups (ΔE00 = 5.57 ± 1.07). The kappa value between the intraoral scanner and spectrophotometer results was 0.10, and this value was not statistically significant (p = 0.32). Conclusions The cross‐polarization technique used especially for shade matching is not superior to the non‐polarization technique. Academic and clinical experience might be correlated with shade‐matching success with the non‐polarization technique. The clinical acceptability threshold could not be achieved in the shade matchings made on digital photographs taken with both techniques. Shade matching performed with an intraoral scanner did not yield reliable results.

[Comparison of Shade Matching Accuracy of Tabs of Shadeguide and Tabs out of Shadeguide].

[The Influence of Toothguide Training Box on Shade Matching Veracity].

Application and Comparison of Two Shade Guide Training Systems

Comparison of Shade Matching Performance of Dental Professionals and Untrained Individuals in Visual Shade Matching Method

[Comparison of Accuracy Between Visual and Spectrophotometric Shade Matching].

Effects of angle deviations on X-Rite's shadeVision system CIELAB measurements

Comparison of the Accuracy and Reliability of Instrumental Shade Selection Devices and Visual Shade Selection: An in Vitro Study

Comparison of visual shade matching and electronic color measurement device

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Visual Shade Matching

The effect of shade-guide with Gumy on visual shade matching

Repeatability and reliability of human eye in visual shade selection

STUDY ON THE COLOR DIFFERENCE OF LIGHT-CURED COMPOSITE RESINS AND ATTACHED SHADE GUIDES

Evaluation of two different approaches to learning shade matching in dentistry

Comparison of shade matching accuracy by visual observation and Crystaleye spectrophotometer

Visual and instrumental coverage error of two dental shade guides: an in vivo study

Effect of different instrumental techniques and clinical experience on shade matching

Visual and instrumental shade matching using CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color difference formulas

Comparison of different digital shade selection methodologies in terms of accuracy

Reliability of conventional shade guides in teeth color determination

[Analysis of the color difference between discolored teeth and corresponding shade tabs in Vitapan Classical shade guide]

The Effect of Different Psychological Suggestions on Tooth Shade Selection Ability