journal of dentistry 38s (2010) e57–e64

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden

Color difference thresholds in dental ceramics

Razvan Ghinea a, Marı́a M. Pérez a,*, Luis J. Herrera b, Marı́a José Rivas a, Ana Yebra a,
Rade D. Paravina c
a
Department of Optics, Faculty of Science, University of Granada, Campus Fuentenueva s/n 18071, Granada, Spain
b
Department of Computer Architecture and Computer Technology, E.T.S.I.I.T. University of Granada, s/n 18071, Granada, Spain
c
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, The University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston, 6516 M.D,
Anderson Boulevard, Ste. 493, Houston, TX, USA

article info abstract

Article history: Objectives: The objective of the study was to determine the perceptibility and acceptability
Received 22 April 2010 thresholds for dental ceramics using CIEDE2000 (DE00) and CIELAB ðDEab Þ color difference
Received in revised form formulas and a novel TSK Fuzzy Approximation.
17 July 2010 Methods: A 13-observer panel performed independent observations of perceptibility and
Accepted 19 July 2010 acceptability judgments on 105 pairs of ceramic discs (14 mm in diameter and 3 mm thick).
Color differences of the disc pairs were calculated using both color difference formulas (DE00
ranged from 0.10 to 9.91). Two fitting procedures were used: S-shaped curve and TSK Fuzzy
Keywords: Approximation. For both procedures, from the resultant fitting curves, the 95% confidence
CIEDE2000 intervals were estimated and the 50:50% thresholds were calculated (50% positive and 50%
CIELAB negative answers).
Acceptability thresholds Results: With the S-shaped fitting procedure, a 50:50% acceptability threshold was found to
Perceptibility thresholds be DE00 = 2.25 (r2 = 0.88) and DEab ¼ 3:46 (r2 = 0.85). Corresponding values with a TSK Fuzzy
Fuzzy Approximation Approximation were DE00 = 2.23 (r2 = 0.89) and DEab ¼ 3:48 (r2 = 0.86). The perceptibility
Dental ceramics thresholds for fitted S-shape curves were DE00 = 1.30 (r2 = 0.74) and DEab ¼ 1:80 (r2 = 0.70)
and DE00 = 1.25 (r2 = 0.75), and DEab ¼ 1:74 (r2 = 0.71) for the TSK Fuzzy Approximation. The
DL0 , DC0 , DH0 values corresponding to a 50% acceptability threshold were DL0 = 2.44, DC0 = 3.15
and DH0 = 3.24 respectively.
Conclusions: The CIEDE2000 color difference formula provided a better fit than CIELAB
formula in the evaluation of color difference thresholds of dental ceramics. There was a
statistically significant difference between perceptibility and acceptability thresholds for
dental ceramics. The TSK Fuzzy Approximation has been proved to be a reliable alternative
approach for the color threshold calculation procedure.
# 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction extensively in dental research and applications, including

Color difference formulas are designed to provide a quanti-
tative representation (DE) of the perceived color difference
(DV) between a pair of colored samples under a given set of
experimental conditions. Color difference has been used
the quantification of color change caused by processing
dental materials1,2, descriptions of coverage error of
dental shade guides3,4, color accuracy and precision5,6,
color perceptibility and acceptability7,8 and translucency
parameter.9

* Corresponding author at: Office 137, Department of Optics, Faculty of Science, University of Granada, Campus Fuentenueva s/n 18071,
Granada, Spain. Tel.: +34 958246164; fax: +34 958248533.
E-mail address: mmperez@ugr.es (M.M. Pérez).
0300-5712/$ – see front matter # 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2010.07.008
e58 journal of dentistry 38s (2010) e57–e64
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
In majority of dental color studies, color and color
difference are quantified using the CIELAB color space and
the associated DEab respectively.10 With the aim of improving
the correction between computed and perceived color
differences of CIELAB formula, three advanced color differ-
ence formulas have been developed: CMC11, CIE9412 and
CIEDE2000.10,13,14 CIE10 presently recommends the use of the
CIEDE2000 formula whenever in the past the CIE94 or CMC
formulas were used.
The CIEDE2000 utilises the concepts of chroma and hue,
reinforcing the importance of the conceptual developments of
Munsell. Comparisons of CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color differ-
ence formulas are available in dental literature.15,16 Recent
reports showed significant correlations between DEab and DE00
values after polymerisation or thermocycling.16–18 The majority
of reported correlations showed only that the values obtained
from these formulas were proportional, but not that the two Fig. 1 – Relative distribution of CIEDE2000 color differences
color differences formulas could be used interchangeably to among pairs of ceramic discs.
evaluate the color differences of resin composites.
Just perceptible color difference refers to smallest color
difference that can be detected by human observer. Color
difference that can be noticed by 50% of observers corresponds CIEDE2000 color differences ranging from 0.10 to 9.91. The
to 50:50% perceptibility threshold. Analogously, the difference distribution of color differences is shown in Fig. 1.
in color that is acceptable for 50% of observers corresponds to A non-contact SpectraScan PR-704 spectroradiometer
50:50% acceptability threshold. The color difference formula is (Photo Research, Chatsworth, USA) was used to measure the
important to allow better correlation between visual judg- spectral reflectance of the ceramic discs. This device can
ments (perceptibility and acceptability) and instrumental measure color in a way that matches the geometry of the
color difference values. Improved correlation might provide visual assessments, and it has been previously used in dental
a more accurate clinical interpretation of the color differences research.25,26 The discs were positioned 40 cm away from the
in dentistry. spectroradiometer and measured at 458. A VeriVide CAC60
A sizeable literature exists on perceptibility and accept- viewing cabinet (VeriVide Limited, Leicester, United King-
ability thresholds in dentistry.7,8,19,20 However, these refer- dom), with a light source simulating the spectral relative
ences predominantly used CIELAB color difference formula, irradiance of CIE D65 standard illuminant was employed to
while the number of studies that used CIEDE2000 formula is provide consistent viewing conditions. The ceramic discs were
limited. Mentioned studies are diverse in methodologies placed in the centre of the viewing cabinet on a 458 tilted base
employed and results obtained. (which corresponds to diffuse/08 illuminating/measuring
The objective of the present study was to determine the geometry). The CIE 1931 28 Standard Colorimetric Observer
perceptibility and acceptability thresholds for dental ceramics was used to calculate color.
using the CIEDE2000 and CIELAB color difference formulas. In Since teeth are translucent and the oral cavity is dark, a
addition to standard adjustment procedures,7,8,21 a novel Munsell black background (L* = 2.8, a* = 0.7, b* = 1.9) was used
Fuzzy Approximation of the perceptible/acceptable percent- for measurements in this study. Similar to another study,26 a
age curves using a Takagi–Sugeno–Kang (TSK) fuzzy model triangular stand was built to hold samples to avoid the
was performed.22,23 Null hypothesis was that there was no specular reflection from the glossy surface.
difference between perceptibility and acceptability thresholds CIELAB color difference ðDEab Þ is calculated as follows:10
for dental ceramics. h i
2 1=2
DEab ¼ ðDL Þ2 þ ðDa Þ2 þ ðDb Þ (1)

2. Materials and methods where DL*, Da*, and Db* are the differences in lightness, green-
red coordinate and blue-yellow coordinate, respectively.
2.1. Samples and color measurements CIEDE2000 color difference (DE00) is calculated as fol-
lows:10,13,14
A total of 15 ceramic discs, 14 mm in diameter by 3 mm thick, " 2  2  2   #1=2
were fabricated8 using mixtures of Vita Omega 900, Vitapan DL0 DC0 DH0 DC0 DH0
DE0 ¼ þ þ þ RT
3D-Master opaque powders, and pink, white, and mauve color KL SL KC SC KH SH KC SC KH SH
opaque powders (VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany). (2)
The range of the color coordinates of the ceramic discs were
L* = 53.95–76.05, a* = 0.33–9.94 and b* = 4.59–29.75. All discs where DL0 , DC0 , and DH0 are the differences in lightness, chro-
were within the color range of central and lateral incisor and ma, and hue for a pair of samples in CIEDE2000, and RT is a
canine teeth from a published study.24 The 15 ceramic discs function (the so-called rotation function) that accounts for the
were combined to create a total of 105 disc pairs, with interaction between chroma and hue differences in the blue
 journal of dentistry 38s (2010) e57–e64
region. Weighting functions, SL, SC, SH adjust the total color
difference for variation in the location of the color difference
pair in L0 , a0 , b0 coordinates and the parametric factors, KL, KC,
KH, are correction terms for experimental conditions. In the
present study, the parametric factors of the CIEDE2000 color
difference formula were set to 1.
To calculate using the CIEDE2000 color difference formula,
discontinues due to mean hue computation and hue-differ-
ence computation were taken into account, whereby both
were pointed out and characterised by Sharma et al.27
2.2. Psychophysical experiments
2.2.1. Acceptability
The 105 ceramic disc pairs were judged by a panel of 13
observers (7 females and 6 males aged between 20 and 48). All
observers have been screened for normal color vision using
the Ishihara charts (Ishihara Color Vision Test, Kamehara
Trading Inc., Tokio, Japan 2004) and all have previous
experience in color discrimination experiments.
During the visual comparisons, the observers were
approximately 40 cm away from the ceramic discs pair, which
was the same distance used for instrumental color measure-
ments. Each observer was instructed to focus their attention
on the centre of the ceramic discs and answer the following
question: ‘‘Would you accept the color difference between the
two ceramic discs under clinical conditions?’’ The responses
for each pair of ceramic discs and each observer (DV – visual
color difference) were processed.
2.2.2. Perceptibility
For the calculation of the perceptibility threshold, the
observers answered the following question: ‘‘Can you detect
a color difference between the two ceramics discs?’’ Each
observer made a total of 105 perceptibility judgments and
these responses (DV – visual color difference) were processed.
2.2.3. Acceptability thresholds in the L0 , C0 and H0 directions
(DL0 , DC0 and DH0 )
A preliminary study of acceptability thresholds for lightness,
chroma and hue differences has also been conducted in this
research. To calculate the acceptability threshold for DL0 , 15
ceramic disc pairs, with the absolute DC0 and DH0 values
smaller than 0.5 units, were selected from the initial 105
ceramic discs pairs. Therefore, it was considered that the color
differences among these pairs originated basically from the
lightness differences, which ranged from DL0 = 0.12–3.11.
Similarly, to evaluate the DC0 acceptability threshold, only
samples with DL0 and DH0 smaller than 0.5 units were selected
(18 pairs, DC’ = 0.15–7.44), while only ceramic pairs with DL0
and DC0 below 0.5 units were used in evaluation of the DH0
threshold (16 pairs, DH0 = 0.13–4.07).
2.3. Fitting procedures
Two fitting methods were used, S-shaped curve and TSK Fuzzy
Approximation. For both procedures, from the resultant fitting
curves obtained, the 95% confidence intervals were estimated
and the 50:50 (50% of positive answers and 50% negative
answers) threshold was calculated. The 50% DE point was
e59
defined as the color difference at which an observer had a 50%
probability of making dichotomous judgment. The 50% DE
point was the level of perceptibility and acceptability,
respectively, for each of these judgment types.
2.3.1. S-shaped curve
Procedures described in previous studies21,28 were employed
to explore the correlation between the visually perceived and
instrumentally measured color differences. Thus, for each
pair, the percentage of DV answers (% unacceptable or %
imperceptible) has been plotted against the instrumentally
measured color differences DE00 and DEab . Then, a S-shaped
curve given by the equation y = A/[1 + exp(B + Cx)] was fitted
using an iterative algorithm (Matlab 7.1 Optimization Toolbox,
MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA) of successive approximations to
the function and its derivatives, until maximising the value of
r.
2.3.2. TSK Fuzzy Approximation
A TSK Fuzzy Approximation is generally a method to
approximate the unknown function that generates the set
of observed data. This approach is used as an alternative
method to obtain a smooth curve without a pre-designed
formulation that likewise fits the data. A TSK Fuzzy Approxi-
mation with Gaussian membership functions and constant
consequents was used to perform the approximation of the
percentage of answers against the instrumentally measured
CIEDE2000 and CIELAB color differences (Matlab 7.1 Fuzzy
Logic Toolbox, MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA).
3. Results
3.1. Acceptability threshold
The values of percent ‘‘unacceptable’’ by the observers against
the CIEDE2000 color difference (DE00) and 95% confidence curves
are plotted in Fig. 2. The fitted curve-percent had the optimal S-
shaped curve parameters: A = 97.40, B = 4.53, C = 2.03 and
r2 = 0.88 (Fig. 2a). The color difference for 50% acceptability was
DE00 = 2.25 (95% confidence interval 1.52–3.03). Corresponding
value with a TSK Fuzzy Approximation was DE00 = 2.23 (95%
confidence interval 1.55–3.00), with r2 = 0.89 (Fig. 2b).
For CIELAB color difference formula, the fitted curve-
percent parameters were: A = 98.12, B = 4.29, C = 1.25 and
r2 = 0.85. The color difference for 50% acceptability was DEab ¼
3:46 (95% confidence interval 2.48–4.48) (Fig. 3a). Using a TSK
Fuzzy Approximation, the corresponding value was DEab ¼
3:48 (95% confidence interval 2.49–4.44), with r2 = 0.86 (Fig. 3b).
3.2. Perceptibility threshold
Figs. 4 and 5 show the values of percent ‘‘imperceptible’’ and
the 95% confidence curves plotted against DE00 and DEab ,
respectively. For CIEDE2000 color difference formula, the fitted
curve-percent was 97.91/[1 + exp(2.75  2.16x)], with r2 = 0.74.
The DE00 value corresponding to 50% perceptibility for fitted S-
shape curves and TSK Fuzzy Approximation was 1.30 (95%
confidence interval 0.50–2.13) (Fig. 4a) and 1.25 (95% confi-
dence interval 0.69–2.22) with r2 = 0.75 (Fig. 4b), respectively.
e60 journal of dentistry 38s (2010) e57–e64
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

Fig. 2 – Unacceptable percentages versus color differences (DE00) between pairs of ceramic discs: (a) fitted S-shape curve
y = A/[1 + exp(B + Cx)] (b) TSK Fuzzy Approximation with 4 equally distributed rules along the x-axis and constant
consequents.

For CIELAB color difference formula, the fitted curve-
percent was 97.56/[1 + exp(2.59  1.47x)], with r2 = 0.70
(Fig. 5a). The DEab value corresponding to 50% perceptibility
for fitted S-shape curve and TSK Fuzzy Approximation
was 1.80 (95% confidence interval 0.74–2.92) and 1.74
(95% confidence interval 0.94–2.94) with r2 = 0.71 (Fig. 5b),
respectively.
3.3. Acceptability thresholds in the L0 , C0 and H0 directions
(DL0 , DC0 and DH0 )
Table 1 shows the optimal parameters determined for the S-
shaped curve and the optimal number of rules used for the
TSK Fuzzy Approximation for CIEDE2000 acceptability thresh-
olds in the L0 , C0 and H0 directions (DL0 , DC0 and DH0 ). The values
for DL0 , DC0 , DH0 corresponding to a 50% acceptability threshold
are presented in Table 2.
4. Discussion
The 50:50% CIEDE2000 acceptability threshold calculated
using the S-shape adjustment curve and the TSK Fuzzy
Approximation were similar, but the TSK Fuzzy Approxima-
tion has a slightly better adjustment (r2 = 0.89). Recent report8
showed lower values for the CIEDE2000 acceptability thresh-
old. There are a number of important differences between
that study and the current one, including range of color
differences and different experimental conditions (surround,
use of a shutter, etc.) which might have caused discrepancy of

[(Fig._3)TD$IG]

Fig. 3 – Unacceptable percentages versus color differences ðDEab Þ between pairs of ceramic discs: (a) fitted S-shape curve
y = A/[1 + exp(B + Cx)] (b) TSK Fuzzy Approximation with 4 equally distributed rules along the x-axis and constant
consequents.
 journal of dentistry 38s (2010) e57–e64 e61
[(Fig._4)TD$IG]

Fig. 4 – Imperceptible percentages versus color differences (DE00) between pairs of ceramic discs: (a) fitted S-shape curve
y = A/[1 + exp(B + Cx)] (b) TSK Fuzzy Approximation with 5 equally distributed rules along the x-axis and constant
consequents.

the obtained thresholds. As for the acceptability threshold,
the DE00 corresponding to a 50:50% perceptibility threshold
was similar when the S-shaped adjustment curve or the TSK
Fuzzy Approximation were used, with better fit obtained with
the latter method.
The values obtained in this study for the CIEDE2000
acceptability/perceptibility thresholds corresponded approxi-
mately to 70% of the values obtained using the CIELAB
formula. These results are in agreement with previous studies
that pointed a linear correlation between DE00 and DEab , with
DE00 values representing a 70–80% of the values of DEab .15,18
Although this behaviour may be valid for specific points in
color space (the region of the color space of the studied ceramic
discs) it should be noted that it is not necessarily generally valid.
The null hypothesis was rejected for both color difference
formulas using both fitting procedures. Assuming the 50:50%
[(Fig._5)TD$IG]
values as normal distributions with variance estimated
according to the confidence intervals of the respective curves,
a t-test confirmed the difference between the perceptibility
and acceptability thresholds, obtaining in all cases a p-
value < 0.001. The mean 50:50% acceptability and perceptibil-
ity thresholds obtained with the best fit were DE00 = 2.23 and
DE00 = 1.25, respectively.
The results showed that the 50:50% perceptibility thresh-
olds were lower than the corresponding acceptability thresh-
olds. Recent study, using computer-simulated teeth, found
that the acceptability and perceptibility thresholds were
nearly identical.29 Another study, on ceramic fused to metal
crowns, found that the DEab acceptability threshold was
significantly greater than the perceptibility threshold.30 This
comparison among perceptibility and acceptability judgments
were not performed independently (only the subjects who
previously identified a perceptible color difference were
allowed to judge whether the difference was acceptable).

Fig. 5 – Imperceptible percentages versus color differences ðDEab Þ between pairs of ceramic discs: (a) fitted S-shape curve
y = A/[1 + exp(B + Cx)] (b) TSK Fuzzy Approximation with 5 equally distributed rules along the x-axis and constant
consequents.
e62 journal of dentistry 38s (2010) e57–e64
Table 1 – Optimal parameters of the S-shaped fitting curves and optimal number of rules used for the TSK Fuzzy
Approximation.
S-shaped curve y = A/[1 + exp(B + Cx)] optimal
parameters
A B C
0
DL 758.44 5.13 0.95
DC0 93.69 3.32 1.10
DH0 68.90 3.11 1.26
In our study, the sensorial experiments were independent, so
the results could not be affected by the method used in the
visual judgments.
The use of an adequate color difference formula is important
to obtain a better correlation of perceptibility and acceptability
to instrumental color difference values. Improved correlation
might provide a more accurate clinical interpretation of color
differences which can result in research targeted at improving
the color replication process in dentistry. We found that
CIEDE2000 color difference formula provided higher degree of
fit than the CIELAB formula for both acceptability and
perceptibility judgments. It is well established that the
CIEDE2000 formula that adjusts for the so-called hue-super
importance leads to statistically significantly improved per-
formance of the formula against visual data when compared to
CIELAB, as does CMC and CIE94. Nevertheless, it seems
appropriate to continue studying the CIEDE2000 weighting
functions (SL, SC, and SH), which may result in an even better fit
with the visual judgments. It is also beneficial the use of an
efficient research design to determine the optimum adjustment
functions for color of human teeth. Using a valid and applicable
formula will improve the modelling of tooth colored aesthetic
materials and, ultimately, patient satisfaction.
As noted, the number of pairs used to calculate the
thresholds for L0 , C0 and H0 differences is markedly lower than
the one used for acceptability and perceptibility thresholds, but
nevertheless is similar to those reported in literature.8 The
results of our study revealled slight differences in tolerance for
thresholds in lightness, chroma and hue, especially for the later
two. It is well documented in the literature that in the Euclidean
metric of CIELAB there is an increase of the tolerance when the
color difference is due essentially to the difference in chroma or
hue, or the difference in chroma is very large.31 In CIELAB-based
color difference formulas, such as CIEDE2000, the tolerance of
chroma difference is corrected with a specific weighting
function (SC). Some authors have shown that chroma correction
is sufficient to eliminate tolerance differences in lightness,
chroma and hue and that the hue correction, although
significant, is less important than the DC0 correction.32 The
slight difference between the tolerance in lightness compared
Table 2 – Value for DL’, DC’, DH’ corresponding to a 50:50% unacceptance percentage.
50:50% Acceptability threshold
S-shaped curve TSK Fuzzy Approximation
DL0 2.71 2.44
DC0 3.25 3.15
DH0 3.33 3.24
TSK Fuzzy Approximation optimal number of rules
3
3
3
to tolerances in chroma and hue could be due to the specific
weighting function defined for lightness in CIEDE2000, or to the
fact that the parametric factor KL should have different value. In
addition, the rotation function (RT) introduced in CIEDE2000 to
weight the interaction between chroma and hue differences in
the blue region, was found to be close to zero (for the region of
the color space of the studied ceramic discs), which means that
this term might have not influenced the values of the DE00.
Future work for the development of a new term that includes
the interaction between lightness and chroma and hue
differences should be undertaken.
The calculated acceptability thresholds in each of these
directions were higher than the recorded acceptability
threshold. This result could be justified by the weighting
functions (SL, SC, SH). In our study, the tolerances in chroma,
hue and lightness were determined from the differences
between the values of chroma, hue and lightness of each
sample of the pair (according to: DL0 ¼ L02  L01 ; DC0 ¼ C02  C01
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and DH0 ¼ 2 C01 C02 sinðDh0 =2Þ), while when calculating the
acceptability threshold, the differences in chroma, hue and
lightness are weighted by their corresponding functions
(always greater than unity). Therefore, for proper comparison
between the acceptability threshold and tolerances for each of
the directions, the influence of the weighting function on the
value of the color difference should be considered.
In addition to the usual adjustment procedures, a novel
Fuzzy Approximation of the perceptible/acceptable percen-
tages curves using a Takagi–Sugeno–Kang (TSK)22,23 Fuzzy
model with Gaussian membership functions and constant
consequents was used in this study. As an alternative method
to traditional statistics inference, data fuzzy modelling
represents a flexible and effective method to model an
unknown function from a set of observed data relative to
that function or phenomenon.33 This method is receiving
more and more attention in explaining and predicting clinical
results in medical sciences34 and is being currently used in
colorimetric studies in dentistry.23
In a one dimensional approximation problem, the optimisa-
tion of a TSK Fuzzy Approximation requires the determination
of the number of rules, the position of their respective centres
r2
S-shaped curve TSK Fuzzy Approximation
0.92 0.93
0.96 0.96
0.95 0.96
 journal of dentistry 38s (2010) e57–e64
and the calculation of the optimal consequents.35 In this work,
the rule centres were considered equally distributed along the
input space, and the rule consequents were optimally obtained
using their derivatives with respect to the model output in the
minimisation of the value of r (Least Squares LSE approach).36
The number of rules in each case was selected using a 10-fold
cross-validation procedure; the number of rules for which the
model provided a lowest cross-validation error was chosen to
perform the approximation using all data.
The performance and generalisation capabilities of both
fitting procedures were additionally assessed in each individ-
ual fitting using a combined repeated 10-fold cross-validation
(10 times 10-fold cross-validation using different random
reorderings) and t-test analysis. The t-test confirmed the
better performance of the TSK Fuzzy Approximation in
comparison to the S-shaped models, with an expected
difference among them similar to that shown in the results
for the overall In general, we can claim that the real shape of
the curve representing the relationship between the instru-
mental color differences and human-eye perceptibility is
unknown. TSK Fuzzy Approximation enable soft and accurate
approximations, without limiting the expected shape of the
objective function. It does not model a predefined function
shape, allowing the adaptation to unknown shapes on the
available data, opposite to the S-shaped function.
The results of this study showed that TSK Fuzzy Approxi-
mation led to a slightly better accuracy in the approximation
of the curves than the S-shaped fit, being therefore a reliable
alternative for this problem and a recommendable methodol-
ogy for approximating color data in dentistry.
5. Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, it was found that:
 The CIEDE2000 color difference formula provided a better fit
than CIELAB formula in the evaluation of color difference
thresholds of dental ceramics, which recommends its use in
dental research and in-vivo instrumental color analysis.
 There was a statistically significant difference between
perceptibility and acceptability thresholds for dental cera-
mics.
 TSK Fuzzy Approximation led to a slightly better accuracy
than traditional S-shaped curve in the color threshold
calculation procedure thus suggesting its use for this type of
research and in general for approximating color data in
dentistry.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Ministerio de Ciencia e
Innovacion (Spain) grants MAT2009-09795 and SAF2010-20558.
e63
references
1. Rosenstiel SF, Baiker MA, Johnston WM. A comparison of
glazed and polished dental porcelain. International Journal of
Prosthodontics 1989;2:524–9.
2. Rosenstiel SF, Porter SS, Johnston WM. Color measurements
of all-ceramic crown systems. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
1989;16:491–501.
3. O’Brien WJ, Boenke KM, Groh CL. Coverage errors of two
shade guides. International Journal of Prosthodontics 1991;
4:45–50.
4. Bayindir F, Kuo S, Johnston WM, Wee AG. Coverage error of
three conceptually different shade guide systems to vital
unrestored dentition. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2007;98:175–85.
5. Seghi RR, Johnston WM, O’Brien WJ. Performance
assessment of colorimetric devices on dental
porcelains. Journal of Dental Research 1989;
68:1755–9.
6. Wee AG, Lindsey DT, Kuo S, Johnston WM. Color accuracy of
commercial digital cameras for use in dentistry. Dental
Materials 2006;22:553–9.
7. Ragain JC, Johnston WM. Color acceptance of direct dental
restorative materials by human observers. Color Research and
Application 2000;25:278–85.
8. Wee AG, Lindsey DT, Shroyer KM, Johnston WM. Use of a
porcelain color discrimination test to evaluate color
difference formulas. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2007;98:101–9.
9. Johnston WM, Ma T, Kienle BH. Translucency parameter of
colorants for maxillofacial prostheses. International Journal of
Prosthodontics 1995;8:79–86.
10. CIE Technical Report: Colorimetry. CIE pub no 15.3. Vienna,
Austria: CIE Central Bureau; 2004.
11. Clarke FJJ, McDonald R, Rigg B. Modification to the JPC79
color difference formula. Journal of the Society of Dyers and
Colorists 1984;100:128–32.
12. CIE Technical Report: Industrial color-difference evaluation.
CIE pub no 116. Vienna, Austria: CIE Central Bureau; 1995.
13. CIE Technical Report: Improvement to industrial color
difference equation. CIE pub no 142, Vienna, Austria: CIE
Central Bureau; 2001.
14. Luo MR, Cui G, Rigg B. The development of the CIE 2000 color
difference formula: CIEDE2000. Color Research and Application
2001;26:340–50.
15. Perez MM, Saleh A, Yebra A, Pulgar R. Study of the variation
between CIELAB DE* and CIEDE2000 color-differences of
resin composites. Dental Materials Journal 2007;26:21–8.
16. Lee YK. Comparison of CIELAB DE* and CIEDE2000
color-differences after polymerization and thermo-cycling
of resin composites. Dental Materials 2005;21:
678–82.
17. Kim SH, Lee YK, Lim BS. Influence of porcine liver esterase
on the color of dental resin composites by CIEDE2000
system. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied
Biomaterials 2005;72:276–83.
18. Paravina RD, Kimura M, Powers JM. Evaluation of
polymerization-dependent changes in color and
translucency of resin composites using two formulae.
Odontology 2005;93:46–51.
19. Seghi RR, Hewlett ER, Kim J. Visual and instrument
colorimetric assessments of small color differences on
translucent dental porcelain. Journal of Dental Research
1989;68:1760–4.
20. Ruyter IE, Nilner K, Moller B. Color stability of dental
composite resin materials for crown and bridge veneers.
Dental Materials 1987;3:246–51.
e64 journal of dentistry 38s (2010) e57–e64
21. Martinez JA, Melgosa M, Perez MM, Hita E, Negueruela AI.
Visual and instrumental color evaluation in red wines. Food
Science and Technology International 2001;7:439–44.
22. Takagi T, Sugeno M. Fuzzy identification of systems and its
applications to modelling and control. IEEE Transactions on
Systems Man and Cybernetics 1985;15:116–32.
23. Herrera LJ, Pulgar R, Santana J, Cardona JC, Guillen A, Rojas I,
Perez MM. Prediction of color change after tooth bleaching
using fuzzy logic for Vita Classical shades identification.
Applied Optics 2010;49:422–9.
24. Gozalo-Diaz DJ, Lindsey DT, Johnston WM, Wee AG.
Measurement of color for craniofacial structures using a 45/
0-degree optical configuration. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2007;97:45–53.
25. Perez MM, Saleh A, Pulgar R, Paravina RD. Light
polymerization-dependent changes in color and
translucency of resin composites. American Journal of
Dentistry 2009;22:97–101.
26. Luo W, Westland S, Ellwood R, Pretty I, Cheung V.
Development of a whiteness index for dentistry. Journal of
Dentistry 2009;37:e21–e26.
27. Sharma G, Wu W, Dalal EN. The CIEDE2000 color-difference
formula: implementation notes, suplementary test data,
and mathematical observations. Color Research and
Application 2005;30:21–30.
28. Strocka D, Brockes A, Paffhausen W. Influence of
experimental parameters on the evaluation of color
difference ellipsoids. Color Research and Application
1983;8:169–75.
29. Lindsey DT, Wee AG. Perceptibility and acceptability of
CIELAB color differences in computer-simulated teeth.
Journal of Dentistry 2007;35:593–9.
30. Douglas RD, Brewer JD. Acceptability of shade differences in
metal ceramic crowns. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
1998;79:254–60.
31. Melgosa M, Hita E, Perez MM, El Moraghi A. Sensitivity
differences in chroma, hue, and lightness from several
classical threshold datasets. Color Research and Application
1995;20:220–5.
32. Huertas R. Diferencias de color en muestras con textura
simulada. PhD Dissertation. Granada University; 2004.
33. Rojas I, Pomares H, Ortega O, Prieto A. Self-organized fuzzy
system generation from training examples. IEEE Transactions
on Fuzzy Systems 2000;8:23–36.
34. Mahfouf M, Abbod MF, Linkens DA. A survey of fuzzy logic
monitoring and control utilization in medicine. Artificial
Intelligence in Medicine 2001;21:27–42.
35. Pomares H, Rojas I, Gonzalez J, Damas M, Pino B, Prieto A.
Online global learning in direct fuzzy controllers. IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 2004;12:218–29.
36. Herrera LJ, Pomares H, Rojas I, Valenzuela O, Prieto A. TaSe,
a Taylor series based fuzzy system model that combines
interpretability and accuracy. Fuzzy Sets and Systems
2005;153:403–27.