ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation of Interexaminer Reliability in Visual Shade Matching: A Comparative Analysis of Optilume Trueshade and Conventional Lighting for Permanent Anterior Teeth.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchieving a lifelike color match for anterior restorations is a persistent challenge because tooth appearance is heavily influenced by illumination and observer-dependent choices. While visual matching with VITA-type guides remains the most common global approach, its reproducibility often drops under varying ambient light.
objectivesThe study sought to determine whether using a light-correcting device (Optilume Trueshade, ~5,500 K; Optident Dental Products, Ilkley, West Yorkshire) meaningfully enhances interexaminer reliability when selecting shades for maxillary anterior teeth with the VITAPAN Classical A1-D4 shade guide (VITA Zahnfabrik, Germany) compared with conventional clinical lighting. METHODOLOGY: In this cross-sectional study, 50 adults (18-40 years) with vital maxillary incisors were randomized into Group A (conventional lighting) and Group B (Optilume Trueshade). Three blinded restorative dentists independently selected shades on the middle third of a randomly selected reference tooth. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, while shade selection differences were analyzed via Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc tests.
resultsInternal consistency was excellent, with both systems achieving a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91 and an overall study reliability of 0.94. For teeth 11, 12, and 22, no statistically significant differences in shade selection were found between operators. A significant discrepancy was observed for tooth 21 (p = 0.002); however, post hoc analysis revealed it was operator-specific rather than a flaw in the lighting system.
conclusionBoth the VITAPAN Classical guide and the Optilume Trueshade system are highly reliable tools for shade matching in restorative dentistry. Individual human factors, such as fatigue and physiological perception, remain significant variables, highlighting the need for periodic calibration and strengthened operator training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.