Prevalence, satisfaction and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with age, gender and skin shade: A cross sectional study

Tanay Chawda; Prashanth Bajantri; Srikant Natarajan; Alisha Ono; Thilak Shetty; Shobha Rodrigues; Umesh Pai; Mahesh M; Sharon Saldanha; Puneeth Hegde; Sandipan Mukherjee; Ann Sales; Vignesh Kamath

doi:10.12688/f1000research.146428.1

Home Browse Prevalence, satisfaction and preference of tooth shades and their...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Prevalence, satisfaction and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with age, gender and skin shade: A cross sectional study

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Tanay Chawda¹, Prashanth Bajantri ¹, Srikant Natarajan², [...] Alisha Ono¹, Thilak Shetty¹, Shobha Rodrigues¹, Umesh Pai¹, Mahesh M¹, Sharon Saldanha¹, Puneeth Hegde¹, Sandipan Mukherjee¹, Ann Sales¹, Vignesh Kamath¹

Tanay Chawda¹, Prashanth Bajantri ¹, [...] Srikant Natarajan², Alisha Ono¹, Thilak Shetty¹, Shobha Rodrigues¹, Umesh Pai¹, Mahesh M¹, Sharon Saldanha¹, Puneeth Hegde¹, Sandipan Mukherjee¹, Ann Sales¹, Vignesh Kamath¹

PUBLISHED 19 Sep 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
² Oral pathology, Oral pathology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Mangalore, Karnataka, 576104, India

Tanay Chawda
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization

Prashanth Bajantri
Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization

Srikant Natarajan
Roles: Investigation, Supervision, Validation

Alisha Ono
Roles: Investigation, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Thilak Shetty
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision

Shobha Rodrigues
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision

Umesh Pai
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization

Mahesh M
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis

Sharon Saldanha
Roles: Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Puneeth Hegde
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Sandipan Mukherjee
Roles: Software, Supervision

Ann Sales
Roles: Project Administration, Supervision, Visualization

Vignesh Kamath
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Resources

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.

Abstract

Shade selection is one of the most important factors that determines the satisfaction of the patient with the dental prosthesis and thus the overall success of the treatment. Conventional methods of shade selection require the presence of existing teeth or past dental/photographic records. In the absence of these, shade selection becomes challenging and must be done subjectively and arbitrarily based on the patient’s age and sex. This study aims to assess the prevalence, satisfaction, and preference of tooth shades, investigating their correlation with age, sex, and skin shade in a diverse sample of 120 participants.

Methods

A total of 120 participants, evenly distributed among 60 males and 60 females, were surveyed. Participants were categorized into age groups (n=15) and asked about their satisfaction with existing tooth shades and their preferences.

Results

The most common existing tooth shade was Value 2 (52.5%).

Statistical analysis using Chi-square tests revealed that Value 2 was the most desired shade among males and females alike, particularly in the age group of 41 to 50 years (p < 0.001).

Shade 2L1.5 was the most prevalent (n=26), with Value 2 (59.16%) being the most sought-after shade, followed by Shade 2L1.5 (n=21), Shade 2M1 (n=18), Shade 1M1 (n=15), and Shade 2R1.5 (n=14).

Existing tooth shades of Value 0 were the least common.

The highest satisfaction with existing shades was observed in males aged 41 to 50 (n=15), followed by males aged 51 to 60 (n=14) and females aged 31 to 40 (n=12) and 41 to 50 (n=12). Significant differences in satisfaction were noted among males (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study reveals a consistent and strong preference among both males and females for tooth shades classified as Value 2, following the VITA Tooth-Guide 3D Master shade guide. This universal preference suggests the relevance and acceptance of this shade category across diverse patient groups.

Keywords

Shade selection , VITA Tooth-Guide 3D Master ,esthetics

Corresponding author: Prashanth Bajantri

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Chawda T et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Chawda T, Bajantri P, Natarajan S et al. Prevalence, satisfaction and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with age, gender and skin shade: A cross sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:1076 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.146428.1) First published: 19 Sep 2024, 13:1076 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.146428.1) Latest published: 14 Jul 2025, 13:1076 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.146428.3)

Introduction

Facial esthetics have become important in modern society as they seem to define one’s character. Dental appearance is one of the main features that determines the attractiveness of our face and plays a key role in our social interactions.¹ It has been found that the most important factors that influence the perception of beautiful teeth are age, gender, and skin color.²^,³

Shade selection is an important procedure for providing patients with an esthetic restoration that harmoniously blends with the patient’s existing dentition.⁴ The selection of teeth with proper shade positively influences the patient’s aesthetic perception and improves prosthesis acceptance.⁵

The selection of artificial teeth to replace missing natural teeth is a relatively straightforward procedure when natural anterior teeth remain. Various tooth-shade guides have been developed for use in patients with natural teeth. However, the choice of tooth shade is problematic for edentulous individuals with no preextraction records.⁶

Various factors such as age, sex, and skin color have been proposed as aids for artificial tooth shade selection.⁷ Some dentists have even suggested the color of hair and eye color, but most authors favor the use of facial skin tone as a guide for tooth shade selection.⁸

There is limited scientific information on the relationship between facial skin complexion and tooth color in the Indian population. This lack of knowledge may impact the ability of prosthodontists to provide better aesthetics to the patient.

The perception among dentists is that individuals with darker skin color have lighter shades of teeth. This perception is commonly explained by the illusion of a greater contrast between skin color and tooth shade.³

The age of the patient was found to have a definite relationship with the tooth shade value, which has been corroborated by many studies that have shown darker tooth shade values with an increase in age and vice versa.³^,⁶

Sex is another factor significantly associated with tooth shade values. Men were more likely to have darker tooth shade values, whereas women of the same age group were more likely to have lighter tooth shade values.⁹

Various studies have been conducted to establish a relationship between age, sex, and skin color in individuals with tooth shades, but contrasting results have been reported. One reason for the varying results can be attributed to the ethnic origin of the study samples.⁸^,⁹

Individual studies conducted by Ajayi et al. (2011), Albashaireh et al., Hamamci et al. (2009), and Afshar MK et al. (2019) had reported satisfaction with dental appearance of 79.4% in Nigeria,¹⁰ 67.6% in Jordan,¹¹ 71.1% in Turkey,¹² and 47.2% in Malaysia.¹³

A study conducted by Maghaireh et al. (2016) found that most people were not satisfied with their tooth color, and the sought-after treatment was tooth whitening. They also reported that women are significantly more likely to seek cosmetic and orthodontic restorations.¹⁴

In a study by Tin-Oo (2011), satisfaction with tooth color was significantly lower in women, and tooth whitening was the most preferred treatment.¹⁵

Research in the field of esthetics and shade matching has predominantly been conducted in Western populations. However, with increasing dental awareness and demand for esthetics in developing countries, such as the Indian subcontinent, research in the field of esthetics based on the local population has become the need of the hour.

This study aimed to determine the prevalence, satisfaction, and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with sex, age, and skin color.

The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the prevalence, preference, and satisfaction of tooth shades between the age class, gender, and skin shade patterns.

Methods

Study setting

This study was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore.

Pilot study and sample size calculation

A Pilot study was conducted which showed a prevalence of satisfaction of 56.52% with an alpha of 5 % the corresponding z value was Z=-1.95996398454005.

Using the formula n=(Z(α/2)/d) 2^ “p(1-p)” the minimum percentage difference to be deemed clinically significant at 10%, the minimum sample size required would be 95 for the study. A method of matched quota sampling was employed to recruit an equal number of participants in each age group and sex. For the easy divisibility of the groups, a sample size of 120 was selected.

Eligibility criteria

120 participants were included in this study using the following inclusion criteria:

1) All six maxillary anterior teeth (canine-to-canine) (13, 12, 11, 21, 22, 23) should be present.
2) Teeth should be no external discoloration or staining
3) All the 6 maxillary anterior teeth should have similar shades

Grouping

The 120 participants were then equally divided into eight groups based on their age and gender, as follows:

Male 20-30	Female 20-30
Male 30-40	Female 30-40
Male 40-50	Female 40-50
Male 50-60	Female 50-60

Procedure

Questionnaire

The participants were then asked to complete a questionnaire on their age, gender, and ethnic origin. They were then shown a face mirror and asked if they were satisfied with the shade of their upper front teeth.

Shade selection

The investigators then selected the most common tooth shade among the maxillary anterior teeth using a shade guide (3D Master, VITA Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG Postfach 1338 D-79704 Bad Säckingen), as per manufacturer instructions (Figure 1A).

Figure 1. A - VITA Tooth-Guide 3D Master. B - L'Oreal skin shade guide.

If the test subjects were not satisfied with their existing tooth shade, they were guided to find the preferred tooth shade using the “VITA Tooth-Guide 3D Master” shade guide.

The participants’ skin color was recorded using the L’Oreal skin shade guide (Figure 1B).

Data management and statistical analysis

After collecting the data from all 120 participants, statistical analysis was done using χ² test to correlate Tooth shade, skin shade, age and gender. Odds ratios were calculated using a logistic regression. Statistical significance was considered at 95% confidence interval, and p values less than 0.05 were considered significant. IBM SPSS Statistics version 20.0 was used for these statistical calculations.

Results

A total of 120 participants were grouped based on their age and sex to evaluate the prevalence, satisfaction, and preference of tooth shade and their correlation with age, sex, and skin shade using questionnaires along with the VITA Tooth-Guide 3D Master shade guide and L’Oreal skin shade guide.

Existing tooth shades

As can be seen in Table 1, the most common existing among the participants was Value 2 (52.5%) of VITA Tooth-Guide 3D Master shade. Shade 2L1.5 (n=26) was the most common, followed by 3L1.5 (n=14), 2M1 (n=12), 2R1.5 (n=10), and 2M2 (n=9).

Table 1. Percentages of existing value of tooth shade and the wanted value of tooth shade by the participants.

	Percentage of participants who had the value of shade	Percentage of participants who wanted the value of shade
Value 0	0%	3.33%
Value 1	8.33%	20%
Value 2	52.5%	58.33%
Value 3	36.66%	17.5%
Value 4	2.5%	0.83%

The least common existing tooth shades were of value 0, with no participants showing any existing shade.

Wanted tooth shades

The most commonly desired tooth shade was of value 2 (58.33%). Shade 2L1.5, the most commonly preferred tooth shade (n=21), followed by 2M1 (n=18), 1M1 (n=15), 2R1.5 (n=14), and 1M2 (n=9).

Chi-square tests revealed that value 2 was the most preferred shade among males and females equally in the age group of 41–50 years, and this was statistically significant (p<0.001) (Table 2).

Table 2. Comparison of shade wanted by males and females of different age groups and their chi-square analysis.

Chi-Square Tests
Age Group		Value	df	P value (<0.05 is significant)
20-30	Pearson Chi-Square	4.419	4	.352
20-30	N of Valid Cases	30
31-40	Pearson Chi-Square	5.559	3	.135
31-40	N of Valid Cases	30
41-50	Pearson Chi-Square	<0.001	2	1<0.001
41-50	N of Valid Cases	30
51-60	Pearson Chi-Square	2.274	2	.321
51-60	N of Valid Cases	30

Satisfaction

Among the shades present, highest satisfaction was observed with people having shades of value 1 (90%), followed by values 2 (82.25%), value 3 (44.44%), and value 4 (33.33%).

As shown in Figure 2, the highest satisfaction with existing shade was seen in males aged 41–50 years (n=15), followed by males aged 51–60 years (n=14), and females aged 31–40(n=12) and 41–50 (n=12). The lowest satisfaction was observed in males aged 20-30 (n=12), followed by males aged 31–40 years (n=10), and females aged 20-30 (n=5).

Figure 2. Bar graph of Satisfaction of tooth shade among participants of different age groups.

A) Males. B) Females.

The differences in satisfaction with tooth shades among the males were statistically significant (p<0.001) (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of satisfaction with existing shades of teeth among males and females of different age groups and their chi-square analysis.

Chi-Square Tests
Sex		Value	df	P value (<0.05 is significant)
Female	Pearson Chi-Square	1.364	3	.714
Female	N of Valid Cases	60
Male	Pearson Chi-Square	31.798	3	<0.001
Male	N of Valid Cases	60

Sex			Age Group				Total
Sex			20-30	31-40	41-50	51-60	Total
Female	Satisfaction	No	5	3	3	5	16
	Satisfaction	Yes	10	12	12	10	44
	Total		15	15	15	15	60
Male	Satisfaction	No	12	10	0	1	23
	Satisfaction	Yes	3	5	15	14	37
	Total		15	15	15	15	60

Skin shades

No statistically significant correlations or differences were found between participants with different skin shades concerning shade present, shade wanted, and satisfaction with existing shades.

Discussion

Various methods of dental shade selection can be broadly categorized into visual and digital methods. Visual methods include the use of stocks and custom shade guides. Digital methods include digital cameras, color-measuring software, colorimeters, spectrophotometers, and intraoral scanners. Despite developments in dental shade selection methods, shade selection remains a challenge that affects esthetic outcomes.¹⁶

This challenge is augmented when patients are edentulous and lack any prior photographic or dental records of the shade of their original teeth, and conventional dental shade selection tools cannot be used.

According to the protocols, the age, sex, and complexion of the patient should be taken into consideration while choosing the dental shade for completely edentulous patients. There are several recommendations for selecting the shape and size of artificial teeth, which are supported by rationale and empirical data.¹⁷^–²⁰

However, shade selection for completely edentulous patients follows vague and broad criteria and is therefore more subjective and arbitrary. These add complexities to complete dentures and full-mouth rehabilitation.¹⁷^–²²

The current study demonstrated that the age and sex of the patient affect their satisfaction with existing dental shades and their shade preferences. No correlation was observed between skin shade and existing or desired shade in the observed test subjects. These observations are similar to those of a previous study. Esan TA, et al.²³

Overall, 67.5% of participants were satisfied with their existing dental shades, while 32.5% people wanted to change their dental shades.

8.3% of the test subjects had dental shade of Vita 3D master value 1. Ninety% of these people were satisfied with their existing dental shade, while 10% of the people wanted to change their shade to value 3.

51.6% Of the test subjects had dental shade with vita 3d master value 2. 82.25% Of these people were satisfied with their existing dental shade, while 11.2% of the people wanted to change their shade to value 1.

37.5% Of the test subjects had dental shade with vita 3d master value 3. 44.44% Of these people were satisfied with their existing dental shade, while 37.77% of the people wanted to change their shade to value 2.

2.5% of the test subjects had dental shade of vita 3d master value 1. 33.33% Of these people were satisfied with their existing dental shade, while 66.66% of the people wanted to change their shade to value 2.

Therefore, shades of value 2 were the most desired shades among the Vita 3D master shades.

The most wanted/liked shades by the test subjects were 2L1.5 (17.5%), 2M1 (15%), 1M1 (12.5%), 2R1.5 (11.67%), 1M2 (7.5%), 2M2 (6.67%), and 2L2.5 (5.83%).

In the age group of 20 to 30 years, 53.3% of the female participants had shades of value 2, while 40% had shades of value 3. 66.7% were satisfied with their existing shade. 46.7% liked shades of value 2 and 26.7% liked value 3.

53.3% Of the male participants had shades of value 2, while 33.3% had shades of value 3. Twenty% were satisfied with their existing shade. 46.7% liked value 2 and 33.3% liked value 1.

In the age group of 30 to 40 years, 46.7% of the female participants had shades of value 3, while 40% had shades of value 2. Eighty% were satisfied with their existing shade. 53.3% liked value 2, and 26.7% liked value 3.

46.7% Of the male participants had shades of value 2, while 46.7% had shades of value 3. 33.3% were satisfied with their existing shade. Sixty% liked value 2, and 33.3% liked value 1.

In the age group of 40 to 50 years, 53.3% of the female participants had shades of value 2, while 40% had shades of value 3. Eighty% were satisfied with their existing shade. 73.3 % liked value 2, and 20% wanted to liked value 3.

66.7% Of the male participants had shades of value 2, while 20% had shades of value 3. 80% were satisfied with their existing shade.

In age group 50 to 60, 40% of the female participants had shades of value 3, while 40% had shades of value 4. 66.7% were satisfied with their existing shade. 53.3% liked value 2, and 26.7% liked value 1.

66.7% Of the male participants had shades of value 2, while 26.7% had shades of value 3. 93.3% were satisfied with their existing shade. 73% liked value 2 and 20% liked value 3.

Males in the higher age groups were more satisfied with their teeth than younger age groups and females. This was also observed in studies conducted by Tin-Oo et al. and Maghaireh et al.¹⁴^,¹⁵

The results of this study showed that people become more satisfied with their shade as age advances. In addition, shades of value 2 were the most common and the most liked shade by males and females of all genders as compared to shades of other values.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Satisfaction with existing shade increases in males, especially in the age group of 41–50 years.
2. The most desired tooth shades by both males and females were of value 2, as per the VITA Tooth-Guide 3D Master shade guide.

Limitations of the study

1. In this study, participants with different skin shades were not evenly selected. Light shade (n=5), fair shade (n=14), medium shade (n=45), Medium Dark shade (n=37), or dark shade (n=19). This can influence the results with respect to the relationship between skin shade and the satisfaction of existing tooth shades, along with tooth shades preferred by the participants of different skin shades.
2. A larger sample size may reveal further correlations between the hue, value, and chroma of existing and preferred tooth shades.

Key points

1. In the case of the unavailability of dental photographic records in edentulous patients, age and sex can act as a guide for shade selection.
2. If the patient or dentist is unsure about the shade of complete dentures and full-mouth rehabilitations, shades of value 2 can be selected, as they are the most liked shades according to the present study.
3. Older men may prefer darker shades of teeth, whereas women of all ages may prefer lighter shades.

Ethical considerations

All observations were performed in conformity with the ethical standards of the Institutional Ethics Committee, Manipal College of Dental Sciences Mangalore, after receiving approval from the committee (ref:22007 dated:12/02/2022). Each individual assigned to participate in the study gave written informed consent to participate in the study.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: prevalence, satisfaction and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with age, gender and skin shade: a cross sectional study, DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24903114.v3.²⁴

This project contains the following:

• Raw data

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Extended data

This project contains the following:

• Questionnaire

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Reporting guidelines

This project contains the following:

• STROBE CHECK

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

1. Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Geiger SB, Levin L: Patients’ satisfaction with dental esthetics. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2007; 138: 805–808. Publisher Full Text
2. Jahangiri L, Reinhardt SB, Mehra RV, et al.: Relationship between tooth shade value and skin color: an observational study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2002; 87: 149–152. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. McAndrew R: Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Vol. 29. . Sage; 2014 Dec; pp. 328–329. Publisher Full Text
4. Azad A, Ahmad S, Zia M, et al.: Relationship of age, gender and skin tone to shades of permanent maxillary central incisors. Pak. Oral Dent. J. 2007; 27: 119–125.
5. Moon RJ, Millar BJ: Dental Aesthetics: A Study Comparing Patients’ Own Opinions with Those of Dentists. Open J. Stomatol. 2017 Apr 17 [cited 2022 Jan 6]; 07: 225–233. Publisher Full Text
6. Marcucci B: A shade selection technique. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003; 89: 518–521. Publisher Full Text
7. Hammad IA: Intrarater repeatability of shade selections with two shade guides. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003; 89: 50–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Zarb G, Bolender CL: Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients: complete dentures and implant-supported prostheses. 12th ed.St. Louis: Mosby Inc.; 2004; pp. 190–207.
9. Bauer J, Vasilache I, Schlegel AK, et al.: Esthetics and Psyche—Part 1 Assessment of the Influence of Patients’ Perceptions of Body Image and Body Experience on Selection of Existing Natural Tooth Color. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2012; 25: 36–43. PubMed Abstract
10. Ajayi EO: Dental aesthetic self-perception and desire for orthodontic treatment among school children in Benin City, Nigeria. Nig. Q. J. Hosp. Med. 2011; 21(1): 45–49. PubMed Abstract
11. Albashaireh ZSM, Alhusein AA, Marashdeh MM: Clinical assessments and patient evaluations of the esthetic quality of maxillary anterior restorations. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2009; 22(1): 65–71. PubMed Abstract
12. Hamamci N, Baaran G, Uysal E: Dental Aesthetic Index scores and perception of personal dental appearance among Turkish university students. Eur. J. Orthod. 2009 Apr; 31(2): 168–173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Afshar MK, Eskandarizadeh A, Torabi M, et al.: Patient Satisfaction with Dental Appearance and Related FactorsA Cross Sectional Study. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2019; 8: 3569–3574. Publisher Full Text
14. Maghaireh GA, AIzraikat H, Taha NA: Satisfaction with Dental Appearance and Attitude toward improving Dental Esthetics among Patients attending a Dental Teaching Center. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2016; 17: 16–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Tin-Oo MM, Saddki N, Hassan N: Factors influencing patient satisfaction with dental appearance and treatments they desire to improve aesthetics. BMC Oral Health. 2011 Feb 23; 11: 1–8. Publisher Full Text
16. Tabatabaian F, Beyabanaki E, Alirezaei P, et al.: Visual and digital tooth shade selection methods, related effective factors and conditions, and their accuracy and precision: A literature review. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2021; 33: 1084–1104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Sharry JJ: Complete denture prosthodontics. 3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill; 1974.
18. Johnson DL, Stratton RJ: Fundamentals of removable prosthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence; 1980; pp. 289–307.
19. Pound E: Applying harmony in selecting and arranging teeth. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 1962; 6: 241–258.
20. Landa LS: Practical guidelines for complete denture esthetics. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 1977; 21: 285–298. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Heartwell CM, Rahn AO: Syllabus of complete dentures. 3rd ed.Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1980; pp. 293–306.
22. Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Hickey JC, et al.: Boucher’s prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients. 10th ed.St Louis: CV Mosby Co; 1990; pp. 330–342.
23. Esan TA, Olusile AO, Akeredolu PA: Factors Influencing Tooth Shade Selection for Completely Edentulous Patients. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2006; 7: 80–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Bajantari P: Prevalence, satisfaction, and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with age, gender, and skin shade: a cross-sectional study. Dataset. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 19 Sep 2024

Author details Author details

Tanay Chawda
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization

Prashanth Bajantri
Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization

Srikant Natarajan
Roles: Investigation, Supervision, Validation

Alisha Ono
Roles: Investigation, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Thilak Shetty
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision

Shobha Rodrigues
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision

Umesh Pai
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization

Mahesh M
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis

Sharon Saldanha
Roles: Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Puneeth Hegde
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Sandipan Mukherjee
Roles: Software, Supervision

Ann Sales
Roles: Project Administration, Supervision, Visualization

Vignesh Kamath
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Resources

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 14 Jul 2025, 13:1076

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.146428.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 05 Mar 2025, 13:1076

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.146428.2

version 1

Published: 19 Sep 2024, 13:1076

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.146428.1

© 2024 Chawda T et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Chawda T, Bajantri P, Natarajan S et al. Prevalence, satisfaction and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with age, gender and skin shade: A cross sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:1076 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.146428.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 19 Sep 2024

Views

Reviewer Report 12 Dec 2024

Dr. Gbenga Emmanuel Adebayo, Department of Dental Services, Federal Medical Centre, Ebute-metta, Nigeria

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.160517.r339854

This article focused on the prevalence, satisfaction of patients and their preference for tooth shade and how it correlate with their age gender and skin color. This is a very good research topic as it addresses the aesthetic need and satisfaction of patient. The demand of patient for dental prosthesis that meet their aesthetic quest is on the rise, and tooth shade matching is a significant factor in meeting this demand. However, having read through the article thoroughly, there are things I observed and these are pointed out under the different sections of the article as follows:
Title
The title of the research is clear and objectives well captured, although “skin color” would have been more appropriate than “skin shade”

Abstract
The author made mention in the abstract that in the absence of teeth and dental photograph, tooth shade selection becomes challenging and subjective. But I want to say that whether teeth and dental photograph are available or not, tooth shade matching is still challenging and subjective if conventional visual method of tooth shade selection is used. Subjectivity of shade selection primarily has to do with the method of shade matching used, whether it is visual or machine aided such as spectrophotometer. I feel the sentence can be rephrased for better understanding.

Introduction
Introduction seems good and past studies were referenced. However, the author is not consistent with the use of “esthetic and ‘aesthetic”, he should have stuck to one. Also, the introduction has too many small paragraphs that can be combined.

Method
- Sampling technique used for this study not appropriate in my own opinion as it might have introduced bias, although it has the advantage of making grouping into equal male and female easy.
- Procedure for the study is not detailed. For example, the tooth shade matching steps was not stated clearly, were the investigators screened for eye anomaly or not, was it done under natural light or not, were the teeth wet or dry etc. For the skin shade matching, which part of the body skin was used, how was the matching done etc.
- Age bracket of the participants and the reason should have been included in the selection criteria not just showing it in the grouping.
- The description of the shade value should have been presented for better understanding of the results.

Result
Result well presented in my own view and breaking it into sections made it clearer

Discussion
Discussion is not adequate, nearly repetition of the result earlier presented, not much reference was made to other studies to corroborate the findings. I feel the discussion can be worked on to make it more robust.

Conclusion
Well concluded

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Aesthetic Restorative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental implantology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 02 Jan 2025

Dr Prashanth Bajantri, Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

02 Jan 2025

Author Response

We thank both the reviewers and the Editorial for the time and effort invested in our manuscript and we are most happy to make the changes suggested by the reviewers.
... Continue reading We thank both the reviewers and the Editorial for the time and effort invested in our manuscript and we are most happy to make the changes suggested by the reviewers.
All the recommendations made by the reviewers have been humbly accepted and the necessary rectifications have been made in the document.

However, if the reviewers feel the need for any more corrections we are happy to do so
kind regards,
Shobha Rodrigues
shobha.j@manipal.edu
corresponding Author
We thank both the reviewers and the Editorial for the time and effort invested in our manuscript and we are most happy to make the changes suggested by the reviewers.
All the recommendations made by the reviewers have been humbly accepted and the necessary rectifications have been made in the document.

However, if the reviewers feel the need for any more corrections we are happy to do so
kind regards,
Shobha Rodrigues
shobha.j@manipal.edu
corresponding Author
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 02 Jan 2025

Dr Prashanth Bajantri, Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

02 Jan 2025

Author Response

We thank both the reviewers and the Editorial for the time and effort invested in our manuscript and we are most happy to make the changes suggested by the reviewers.
... Continue reading We thank both the reviewers and the Editorial for the time and effort invested in our manuscript and we are most happy to make the changes suggested by the reviewers.
All the recommendations made by the reviewers have been humbly accepted and the necessary rectifications have been made in the document.

However, if the reviewers feel the need for any more corrections we are happy to do so
kind regards,
Shobha Rodrigues
shobha.j@manipal.edu
corresponding Author
We thank both the reviewers and the Editorial for the time and effort invested in our manuscript and we are most happy to make the changes suggested by the reviewers.
All the recommendations made by the reviewers have been humbly accepted and the necessary rectifications have been made in the document.

However, if the reviewers feel the need for any more corrections we are happy to do so
kind regards,
Shobha Rodrigues
shobha.j@manipal.edu
corresponding Author
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 28 Nov 2024

Stephen Westland, School of Design, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.160517.r339847

This is an interesting manuscript that explores the relationship between prevalence, satisfaction and preference for shades and age, gender and skin shade.
I believe that the work was carried out with Indian participants. With that

This is an interesting manuscript that explores the relationship between prevalence, satisfaction and preference for shades and age, gender and skin shade.
I believe that the work was carried out with Indian participants. With that in mind I think it would be sensible to specify this in the abstract.
In the Methods section a Z value of Z=-1.95996398454005 is reported. I don't think this number of decimal places is justified. I suggest this be changed to 1.96.
In terms of the pilot study conclusions, are the authors satisfied that 120 participants in total should be recruited rather than 120 in each of the age age/gender categories?
Under Eligibility Criteria point 2 should be changed from
- "Teeth should be no external discoloration or staining" to
"Teeth should have no external discoloration or staining."
In the Grouping section, shouldn't the table have a title, e.g. Table 1: blah blah.
Under Procedure the authors write:
- "The investigators then selected the most common tooth shade among the maxillary anterior teeth" Is this really what the mean? In which case, what was the most common tooth shade. I think they might mean to write that they selected the tooth shade that best matched the participant's teeth.
Under Wanted tooth shades, I think this would be better expressed as Desired tooth shades.
Under wanted shade section, I do find it confusing. For example, in Table 1 it is evident that Value 2 is most prevalent and most preferred. Later, in the statistical analysis in Table 2 it is reported that there is significance for the the 41-50 age group. But what is significant? It is not clear.
The way the Discussion is presented is not very engaging. It is simply a list of observations with very little discussion involved.
Ultimately, although satisfaction and preference is interesting, I think prevalence is most important. The finding is that most people have teeth of Value 2. Is there any correlation of tooth shade prevalence with age or gender?
I think a clearer Discussion is needed. Factual observations should be moved to the Results section. The list of observations in the Discussion is too long. A proper discussion of what the results mean clinically is needed.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Specialist in colour and appearance of teeth

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 19 Sep 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 3 (revision) 14 Jul 25
Version 2 (revision) 05 Mar 25	read		read
Version 1 19 Sep 24	read	read

Stephen Westland, School of Design, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Dr. Gbenga Emmanuel Adebayo, Federal Medical Centre, Ebute-metta, Nigeria
Leszek Szalewski, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

26 Jun 2025 | for Version 2

Leszek Szalewski, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

14 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The manuscript titled "Prevalence, satisfaction and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with age, gender and skin shade: A cross-sectional study" addresses an important topic in contemporary prosthodontics: the subjective and multifactorial nature of tooth shade selection and its relationship with demographic variables. The study is relevant and timely, particularly within the context of increasing esthetic awareness in the Indian population.
The abstract provides a comprehensive summary of the research; however, it includes a somewhat misleading statement suggesting that difficulties in shade selection persist “despite the presence of dental records or photographs.” In fact, such difficulties primarily arise from the inherent subjectivity of visual shade selection methods. It would be more precise to attribute this challenge to the method used rather than the availability of historical data.
The introduction is well-structured and touches on key background concepts, but it would benefit from greater linguistic consistency—particularly with regard to the spelling of "esthetic" versus "aesthetic" and "color" versus "colour." Several short paragraphs could be merged to improve flow and coherence. Some of the cited references are dated and could be supplemented with more recent literature to enhance the scientific rigor.
The methods section provides a general overview of the sampling and procedures used, including the use of the VITA Tooth-Guide 3D Master and the L’Oréal skin shade guide. However, several methodological concerns merit attention. The choice of a matched quota sampling technique introduces potential bias, despite its utility in ensuring equal gender and age group representation. The study lacks a clear justification for the selected age brackets, and the protocol for tooth shade and skin shade evaluation could be described in more detail—particularly regarding lighting conditions, calibration of observers, and steps to minimize intra- and inter-observer variability.
The statistical analysis is broadly appropriate, employing Chi-square tests and logistic regression. Nonetheless, key details—such as confidence intervals or odds ratios—are not provided, and Table 2 lacks clarity in explaining what was statistically significant. Some aspects of the presentation would benefit from clearer explanations and more consistent terminology (e.g., “desired” tooth shade rather than “wanted”).
The discussion section is underdeveloped. Rather than offering an interpretive analysis of the findings in the context of existing literature, it reads as a list of factual observations. The authors miss the opportunity to explore the clinical implications of their results more deeply. For instance, while the preference for shade Value 2 is clearly demonstrated, the discussion lacks a thorough exploration of how this might inform clinical protocols, especially in edentulous patients.
The limitations section is appropriate, though brief. It would be helpful to elaborate on the potential effects of selection bias, the relatively small sample size, and the lack of blinding or randomization.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

prosthetics, dental photography, dental education,

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

09 Aug 2025

Dr Prashanth Bajantri, Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for the time and effort invested in evaluating our manuscript . We believe these revisions have strengthened the clarity and clinical relevance of our work. We are happy to work on any further suggestions made by you.
We have addressed the changes point by point.
Abstract: The sentence implies that difficulties persist “despite records”; subjectivity stems from visual methods.
All the revised changes recommended are tracked in the new document

2
Title: Prefer “skin color” over “skin shade.”
Title has been amended

3
Introduction—Consistency (esthetic/aesthetic; color/colour). Merge short paragraphs; update dated references.
We have standardized to “esthetic” and “color” throughout and merged related paragraphs for improved flow..

4
Methods—Sampling bias, age‑bracket rationale, procedural detail (lighting, calibration, intra/inter‑observer variability, skin‑shade site).
Changes made are highlighted in red

5
Statistical Analysis—Provide CIs/Odds Ratios.
95% confidence intervals and odds ratios are now reported for logistic regression. Table 2 was reformatted and the caption rewritten to explain significance indicators clearly.

6
Terminology—Use “preferred” instead of “wanted.”
Replaced all occurrences of “wanted” with “preferred.”

7
Discussion—Too descriptive; expand interpretation, link to literature, emphasize clinical implications.
Clinical implications added. All repeat in results has been removed

8
Limitations—Elaborate on selection bias, sample size, absence of blinding/randomization.
Expanded the limitations to include these points and their potential impact on generalizability.

9
Minor language issues & typographical errors have been addressed

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

12 Views

27 Mar 2025 | for Version 2

Stephen Westland, School of Design, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

12 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Many thanks. I just read the revised manuscript and I have seen the response to the comment. On this basis I am happy to recommend the manuscript be accepted.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

12 Dec 2024 | for Version 1

Dr. Gbenga Emmanuel Adebayo, Department of Dental Services, Federal Medical Centre, Ebute-metta, Nigeria

16 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Aesthetic Restorative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental implantology

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

02 Jan 2025

Dr Prashanth Bajantri, Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

We thank both the reviewers and the Editorial for the time and effort invested in our manuscript and we are most happy to make the changes suggested by the reviewers.
All the recommendations made by the reviewers have been humbly accepted and the necessary rectifications have been made in the document.

However, if the reviewers feel the need for any more corrections we are happy to do so
kind regards,
Shobha Rodrigues
shobha.j@manipal.edu
corresponding Author

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

28 Nov 2024 | for Version 1

Stephen Westland, School of Design, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

14 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

This is an interesting manuscript that explores the relationship between prevalence, satisfaction and preference for shades and age, gender and skin shade.
I believe that the work was carried out with Indian participants. With that in mind I think it would be sensible to specify this in the abstract.
In the Methods section a Z value of Z=-1.95996398454005 is reported. I don't think this number of decimal places is justified. I suggest this be changed to 1.96.
In terms of the pilot study conclusions, are the authors satisfied that 120 participants in total should be recruited rather than 120 in each of the age age/gender categories?
Under Eligibility Criteria point 2 should be changed from
- "Teeth should be no external discoloration or staining" to
"Teeth should have no external discoloration or staining."
In the Grouping section, shouldn't the table have a title, e.g. Table 1: blah blah.
Under Procedure the authors write:
- "The investigators then selected the most common tooth shade among the maxillary anterior teeth" Is this really what the mean? In which case, what was the most common tooth shade. I think they might mean to write that they selected the tooth shade that best matched the participant's teeth.
Under Wanted tooth shades, I think this would be better expressed as Desired tooth shades.
Under wanted shade section, I do find it confusing. For example, in Table 1 it is evident that Value 2 is most prevalent and most preferred. Later, in the statistical analysis in Table 2 it is reported that there is significance for the the 41-50 age group. But what is significant? It is not clear.
The way the Discussion is presented is not very engaging. It is simply a list of observations with very little discussion involved.
Ultimately, although satisfaction and preference is interesting, I think prevalence is most important. The finding is that most people have teeth of Value 2. Is there any correlation of tooth shade prevalence with age or gender?
I think a clearer Discussion is needed. Factual observations should be moved to the Results section. The list of observations in the Discussion is too long. A proper discussion of what the results mean clinically is needed.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Specialist in colour and appearance of teeth

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Geiger SB, Levin L: Patients’ satisfaction with dental esthetics. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2007; 138: 805–808. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Jahangiri L, Reinhardt SB, Mehra RV, et al.: Relationship between tooth shade value and skin color: an observational study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2002; 87: 149–152. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. McAndrew R: Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Vol. 29. . Sage; 2014 Dec; pp. 328–329. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Azad A, Ahmad S, Zia M, et al.: Relationship of age, gender and skin tone to shades of permanent maxillary central incisors. Pak. Oral Dent. J. 2007; 27: 119–125.

[5] 5. Moon RJ, Millar BJ: Dental Aesthetics: A Study Comparing Patients’ Own Opinions with Those of Dentists. Open J. Stomatol. 2017 Apr 17 [cited 2022 Jan 6]; 07: 225–233. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Marcucci B: A shade selection technique. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003; 89: 518–521. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Hammad IA: Intrarater repeatability of shade selections with two shade guides. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003; 89: 50–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Zarb G, Bolender CL: Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients: complete dentures and implant-supported prostheses. 12th ed.St. Louis: Mosby Inc.; 2004; pp. 190–207.

[9] 9. Bauer J, Vasilache I, Schlegel AK, et al.: Esthetics and Psyche—Part 1 Assessment of the Influence of Patients’ Perceptions of Body Image and Body Experience on Selection of Existing Natural Tooth Color. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2012; 25: 36–43. PubMed Abstract

[10] 10. Ajayi EO: Dental aesthetic self-perception and desire for orthodontic treatment among school children in Benin City, Nigeria. Nig. Q. J. Hosp. Med. 2011; 21(1): 45–49. PubMed Abstract

[11] 11. Albashaireh ZSM, Alhusein AA, Marashdeh MM: Clinical assessments and patient evaluations of the esthetic quality of maxillary anterior restorations. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2009; 22(1): 65–71. PubMed Abstract

[12] 12. Hamamci N, Baaran G, Uysal E: Dental Aesthetic Index scores and perception of personal dental appearance among Turkish university students. Eur. J. Orthod. 2009 Apr; 31(2): 168–173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Afshar MK, Eskandarizadeh A, Torabi M, et al.: Patient Satisfaction with Dental Appearance and Related FactorsA Cross Sectional Study. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2019; 8: 3569–3574. Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Maghaireh GA, AIzraikat H, Taha NA: Satisfaction with Dental Appearance and Attitude toward improving Dental Esthetics among Patients attending a Dental Teaching Center. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2016; 17: 16–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Tin-Oo MM, Saddki N, Hassan N: Factors influencing patient satisfaction with dental appearance and treatments they desire to improve aesthetics. BMC Oral Health. 2011 Feb 23; 11: 1–8. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Tabatabaian F, Beyabanaki E, Alirezaei P, et al.: Visual and digital tooth shade selection methods, related effective factors and conditions, and their accuracy and precision: A literature review. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2021; 33: 1084–1104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Sharry JJ: Complete denture prosthodontics. 3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill; 1974.

[18] 18. Johnson DL, Stratton RJ: Fundamentals of removable prosthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence; 1980; pp. 289–307.

[19] 19. Pound E: Applying harmony in selecting and arranging teeth. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 1962; 6: 241–258.

[20] 20. Landa LS: Practical guidelines for complete denture esthetics. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 1977; 21: 285–298. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Heartwell CM, Rahn AO: Syllabus of complete dentures. 3rd ed.Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1980; pp. 293–306.

[22] 22. Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Hickey JC, et al.: Boucher’s prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients. 10th ed.St Louis: CV Mosby Co; 1990; pp. 330–342.

[23] 23. Esan TA, Olusile AO, Akeredolu PA: Factors Influencing Tooth Shade Selection for Completely Edentulous Patients. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2006; 7: 80–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Bajantari P: Prevalence, satisfaction, and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with age, gender, and skin shade: a cross-sectional study. Dataset. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Prevalence, satisfaction and preference of tooth shades and their correlation with age, gender and skin shade: A cross sectional study

Abstract

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Study setting

Pilot study and sample size calculation

Eligibility criteria

Grouping

Procedure

Figure 1. A - VITA Tooth-Guide 3D Master. B - L'Oreal skin shade guide.

Data management and statistical analysis

Results

Existing tooth shades

Table 1. Percentages of existing value of tooth shade and the wanted value of tooth shade by the participants.

Wanted tooth shades

Table 2. Comparison of shade wanted by males and females of different age groups and their chi-square analysis.

Satisfaction

Figure 2. Bar graph of Satisfaction of tooth shade among participants of different age groups.

Table 3. Comparison of satisfaction with existing shades of teeth among males and females of different age groups and their chi-square analysis.

Skin shades

Discussion

Conclusions

Limitations of the study

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated