Abstract
Selecting shades of acrylic gingival restorative material is challenging. This study examined the shade appropriateness of five acrylic gingival restorative materials. The color was analyzed using an intraoral spectrophotometer (Crystaleye(®), Olympus). The gingival color of maxillary incisors for eighty-nine patients was measured. CIELAB color coordinates (L*, a* and b*) were obtained, and the color difference ∆E (Coverage Error: CE) between shade tabs and natural gingival color of patient samples for each shade guide system were compared. Repeated ANOVA and post hoc analyses with Tukey's HSD were performed. There was a significant difference among the mean minimum CEs of the tab sets (p < 0.01). GC Acrylic (CE = 5.89 ∆E ± 2.97) and Lucitone 199(®) (CE = 6.55 ± 3.33) groups exhibited CEs significantly lower than all other groups (all p < 0.001). The IvoCap(®) system exhibited the highest CE (10.78 ± 3.80), significantly greater than all other groups (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed based on sex (p = 0.055) or ethnicity (p = 0.327). The GC Acrylic and Lucitone 199(®) shade guides showed the lowest CEs. All guides had coverage errors above 5.89 ∆E, which is larger than ∆E thresholds of acceptability. Of the materials evaluated in this study, GC Acrylic and Lucitione 199(®) are best able to reproduce the clinical appearance of the gingival tissue. Many patients have tissue that cannot be reproduced accurately with currently available materials.