Carine Mounir Ziadeh, Pascale Habre, Lara Nasr, Helene J Haddad
{"title":"Dental Color Matching: A Comparison between Visual and Digital Shade Selection Repeatability in the Anterior and Posterior Region: A Clinical Study","authors":"Carine Mounir Ziadeh, Pascale Habre, Lara Nasr, Helene J Haddad","doi":"10.3844/crdsp.2023.8.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": The clinical study aimed to evaluate the repeatability of the Intraoral Scanner (IOS) in terms of dental shade selection in comparison to the visual method and to find if the difference between these two methods is clinically acceptable. As well as to assess the impact of tooth position on the repeatability of the IOS in shade selection. Two experienced raters have selected the shades of 38 right maxillary incisors, canines, and molars in 38 patients on two different days under the same clinical conditions using both the visual method and the trio’s intraoral scanner. Vita toothguide 3D-master was used as the shade guide reference for both methods. Delta E (ΔΕ) was calculated to assess the repeatability of each technique and to evaluate the difference in color matching between each observer and the IOS. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows and the level of significance was set at 5%. Results of repeatability assessment between day 1 and day 2 for the visual method and the intraoral scanner were higher in the incisor region but lower in the canine and molar region for the IOS compared to the visual method. However, this difference is not statistically significant in all regions (p>0.05). The color difference between the visual technique and the IOS was significantly lower than the clinical acceptability threshold, except between the second rater and intraoral scanner on day 2 for the molar region. Within the intraoral scanner, the repeatability agreement rate was significantly greater for the central, compared to the canine and molar teeth. The IOS is a reliable instrument for color shade selection compared to the visual method, especially in the anterior region; however, tooth position had an impact on its repeatability.","PeriodicalId":117844,"journal":{"name":"Current Research in Dentistry","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Research in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3844/crdsp.2023.8.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
: The clinical study aimed to evaluate the repeatability of the Intraoral Scanner (IOS) in terms of dental shade selection in comparison to the visual method and to find if the difference between these two methods is clinically acceptable. As well as to assess the impact of tooth position on the repeatability of the IOS in shade selection. Two experienced raters have selected the shades of 38 right maxillary incisors, canines, and molars in 38 patients on two different days under the same clinical conditions using both the visual method and the trio’s intraoral scanner. Vita toothguide 3D-master was used as the shade guide reference for both methods. Delta E (ΔΕ) was calculated to assess the repeatability of each technique and to evaluate the difference in color matching between each observer and the IOS. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows and the level of significance was set at 5%. Results of repeatability assessment between day 1 and day 2 for the visual method and the intraoral scanner were higher in the incisor region but lower in the canine and molar region for the IOS compared to the visual method. However, this difference is not statistically significant in all regions (p>0.05). The color difference between the visual technique and the IOS was significantly lower than the clinical acceptability threshold, except between the second rater and intraoral scanner on day 2 for the molar region. Within the intraoral scanner, the repeatability agreement rate was significantly greater for the central, compared to the canine and molar teeth. The IOS is a reliable instrument for color shade selection compared to the visual method, especially in the anterior region; however, tooth position had an impact on its repeatability.
本临床研究旨在评估口腔内扫描(IOS)在牙色选择方面的可重复性,并与目测法进行比较,以确定这两种方法之间的差异在临床上是否可以接受。以及评估齿位对阴影选择中IOS可重复性的影响。两位经验丰富的评判员在相同的临床条件下,使用视觉方法和三人口腔内扫描仪在不同的两天选择了38名患者的38个右上颌门牙,犬齿和磨牙的阴影。两种方法均以Vita齿导3D-master作为阴影导轨参考。计算Delta E (ΔΕ)以评估每种技术的可重复性,并评估每个观察者与IOS之间的颜色匹配差异。数据采用IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows进行分析,显著性水平设为5%。与目测法相比,目测法和口内扫描仪在第1天和第2天的重复性评估结果在门牙区域较高,而在犬齿和磨牙区域较低。然而,这一差异在所有地区均无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。除了在第2天的磨牙区域,视觉技术与口腔内扫描仪的色差显著低于临床可接受阈值。在口腔内扫描仪中,与犬牙和磨牙相比,中央牙齿的重复性一致性率显着更高。与目测方法相比,IOS是一种可靠的色度选择工具,特别是在前区;然而,牙的位置对其重复性有影响。