PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate interexaminer reliability in the clinical measurement of the L*C*h* (lightness/value, chroma, hue) values of anterior teeth using a spectrophotometer (Vita Easyshade). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The basic color of the maxillary right central incisors and canines of 23 subjects was spectrophotometrically determined by 4 clinicians and an experienced user (development manager) of the spectrophotometer. Also, to analyze the effect of different training with the instrument on interexaminer reliability, 2 of the clinicians were instructed in the use of the spectrophotometer by the experienced examiner, whereas the others instructed themselves by studying the operating manual. RESULTS: Agreement between all examiners was acceptable to excellent (intraclass coefficient > 0.4). The mean value of the measured differences for the central incisors of all subjects for L* values was 5 (for C* = 3.8, h* = 2.7 degrees) and for canines, the mean L* was 4.5 (C* = 3, h* = 1.6 degrees). Results from comparison of the 2 different training methods were inconsistent. Agreement with the experienced examiner ranged from not acceptable (C* values for incisors of self-instructed examiners) to excellent. CONCLUSION: The distribution of the measurements of 1 subject could lead to deviations in color, probably with clinical impact. For canines, the measurements were at least equally reproducible (in some cases significantly more reproducible) compared to central incisors. Because of the small number of examiners and the inconsistent results, it was not possible to reach a definite conclusion about the effect of different training methods on interexaminer reliability.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate interexaminer reliability in the clinical measurement of the L*C*h* (lightness/value, chroma, hue) values of anterior teeth using a spectrophotometer (Vita Easyshade). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The basic color of the maxillary right central incisors and canines of 23 subjects was spectrophotometrically determined by 4 clinicians and an experienced user (development manager) of the spectrophotometer. Also, to analyze the effect of different training with the instrument on interexaminer reliability, 2 of the clinicians were instructed in the use of the spectrophotometer by the experienced examiner, whereas the others instructed themselves by studying the operating manual. RESULTS: Agreement between all examiners was acceptable to excellent (intraclass coefficient > 0.4). The mean value of the measured differences for the central incisors of all subjects for L* values was 5 (for C* = 3.8, h* = 2.7 degrees) and for canines, the mean L* was 4.5 (C* = 3, h* = 1.6 degrees). Results from comparison of the 2 different training methods were inconsistent. Agreement with the experienced examiner ranged from not acceptable (C* values for incisors of self-instructed examiners) to excellent. CONCLUSION: The distribution of the measurements of 1 subject could lead to deviations in color, probably with clinical impact. For canines, the measurements were at least equally reproducible (in some cases significantly more reproducible) compared to central incisors. Because of the small number of examiners and the inconsistent results, it was not possible to reach a definite conclusion about the effect of different training methods on interexaminer reliability.