Comparison of the Accuracy and Reliability of Instrumental Shade Selection Devices and Visual Shade Selection: An in Vitro Study.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
N Kutkut, M Jordi, A Almalki, J Conejo, E Anadioti, M Blatz
{"title":"Comparison of the Accuracy and Reliability of Instrumental Shade Selection Devices and Visual Shade Selection: An in Vitro Study.","authors":"N Kutkut, M Jordi, A Almalki, J Conejo, E Anadioti, M Blatz","doi":"10.1111/jerd.13311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>New shade-matching devices are available for clinical use, but their accuracy and reliability have not been investigated. This in vitro study compared the accuracy and reliability of a shade-matching colorimeter (Optishade), a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade V), and visual shade matching in simulated clinical conditions.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Shade matching was conducted with two digital devices; (Optishade and Vita Easyshade) and the visual shade selection method, with a new 16-tab Vita Classical shade guide. Shade tabs were placed within a gingival matrix and measurements were taken from the central area of each shade tab enclosed in a black box to simulate the oral cavity. Visual assessments were conducted independently by two examiners. For the reliability assessment, each shade tab was measured 20 times by each examiner. Accuracy was calculated as a percentage of the matching readings with the actual shade per each tab. Data were analyzed with the one-way ANOVA test (α = 0.05) and Pairwise Comparison (Bonferroni Post hoc Test) to assess accuracy. The reliability evaluation was conducted by comparison between both examiners using mean and standard deviation; by a two-tailed t-test for the independent samples for all the three groups included in the study.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>The shade matching accuracy of Optishade was 97.50%, Vita Easyshade 89.38%, and visual method 62.19%. Statistically, high significant difference in accuracy (p < 0.001) was found when comparing both Optishade and VITA Easyshade with the visual method. Additionally, there was statistically significant difference in accuracy (p < 0.05) when Optishade was compared to Vita Easyshade. The reliability of the Optishade was 99.6% and Vita Easy shade was 99.38%. Statistically, showed no statistically significant difference in the reliability of shade match obtained within the same group when comparing the readings of Examiner 1 and Examiner 2 (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The colorimeter demonstrated the highest accuracy, followed by the spectrophotometer, and the visual shade selection method. Both digital methods investigated in this study showed comparable reliability.</p><p><strong>Clinical implication: </strong>The results of this study emphasize the clinical advantage of digital shade-matching devices over visual shade-matching. The colorimeter offers high accuracy for shade matching and should be considered to use for shade matching especially with restorations in the esthetic zone.</p>","PeriodicalId":15988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13311","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: New shade-matching devices are available for clinical use, but their accuracy and reliability have not been investigated. This in vitro study compared the accuracy and reliability of a shade-matching colorimeter (Optishade), a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade V), and visual shade matching in simulated clinical conditions.

Material and methods: Shade matching was conducted with two digital devices; (Optishade and Vita Easyshade) and the visual shade selection method, with a new 16-tab Vita Classical shade guide. Shade tabs were placed within a gingival matrix and measurements were taken from the central area of each shade tab enclosed in a black box to simulate the oral cavity. Visual assessments were conducted independently by two examiners. For the reliability assessment, each shade tab was measured 20 times by each examiner. Accuracy was calculated as a percentage of the matching readings with the actual shade per each tab. Data were analyzed with the one-way ANOVA test (α = 0.05) and Pairwise Comparison (Bonferroni Post hoc Test) to assess accuracy. The reliability evaluation was conducted by comparison between both examiners using mean and standard deviation; by a two-tailed t-test for the independent samples for all the three groups included in the study.

Result: The shade matching accuracy of Optishade was 97.50%, Vita Easyshade 89.38%, and visual method 62.19%. Statistically, high significant difference in accuracy (p < 0.001) was found when comparing both Optishade and VITA Easyshade with the visual method. Additionally, there was statistically significant difference in accuracy (p < 0.05) when Optishade was compared to Vita Easyshade. The reliability of the Optishade was 99.6% and Vita Easy shade was 99.38%. Statistically, showed no statistically significant difference in the reliability of shade match obtained within the same group when comparing the readings of Examiner 1 and Examiner 2 (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: The colorimeter demonstrated the highest accuracy, followed by the spectrophotometer, and the visual shade selection method. Both digital methods investigated in this study showed comparable reliability.

Clinical implication: The results of this study emphasize the clinical advantage of digital shade-matching devices over visual shade-matching. The colorimeter offers high accuracy for shade matching and should be considered to use for shade matching especially with restorations in the esthetic zone.

仪器遮光设备与视觉遮光选择的准确性和可靠性比较:体外研究
目的:目前已有新的遮光比色设备可供临床使用,但尚未对其准确性和可靠性进行研究。这项体外研究比较了遮光比色计(Optishade)、分光光度计(VITA Easyshade V)和视觉遮光比色在模拟临床条件下的准确性和可靠性:使用两种数字设备(Optishade 和 Vita Easyshade)进行色调匹配,并使用新的 16 片 Vita 经典色调指南进行视觉色调选择法。在牙龈矩阵中放置遮色片,并从每个遮色片的中心区域进行测量,该区域封闭在一个模拟口腔的黑盒子中。视觉评估由两名检查员独立进行。在可靠性评估中,每位检查员对每个遮光片测量 20 次。准确度以每个遮光片上的读数与实际遮光的匹配百分比来计算。数据分析采用单因素方差分析(α = 0.05)和配对比较(Bonferroni Post hoc Test)来评估准确度。可靠性评估是通过使用平均值和标准偏差对两位检查者进行比较,以及对所有三组研究中的独立样本进行双尾 t 检验来进行的:结果:Optishade 的色调匹配准确率为 97.50%,Vita Easyshade 为 89.38%,目测法为 62.19%。结果:Optishade 的配色准确率为 97.50%,Vita Easyshade 为 89.38%,目测法为 62.19%:色度计的准确度最高,其次是分光光度计和目测遮光选择法。结论:色差计的准确度最高,其次是分光光度计和目测色调选择法,本研究中调查的两种数字方法都显示出相当的可靠性:临床意义:本研究的结果强调了数字色调匹配设备比视觉色调匹配的临床优势。色度计在色调匹配方面具有很高的准确性,应考虑用于色调匹配,尤其是在美容区的修复体上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
124
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry (JERD) is the longest standing peer-reviewed journal devoted solely to advancing the knowledge and practice of esthetic dentistry. Its goal is to provide the very latest evidence-based information in the realm of contemporary interdisciplinary esthetic dentistry through high quality clinical papers, sound research reports and educational features. The range of topics covered in the journal includes: - Interdisciplinary esthetic concepts - Implants - Conservative adhesive restorations - Tooth Whitening - Prosthodontic materials and techniques - Dental materials - Orthodontic, periodontal and endodontic esthetics - Esthetics related research - Innovations in esthetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信