Perceptibility and Acceptability Thresholds for Color Differences in Ceramic Shade Tabs: A Comparison Between Dentists and Patients.

Q2 Dentistry
Vanessa Schussler, Daniel Yuydi Kawakami, Marco Antonio Garcia Rocha, Mario Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti, Mateus Garcia Rocha, Dayane Oliveira
{"title":"Perceptibility and Acceptability Thresholds for Color Differences in Ceramic Shade Tabs: A Comparison Between Dentists and Patients.","authors":"Vanessa Schussler, Daniel Yuydi Kawakami, Marco Antonio Garcia Rocha, Mario Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti, Mateus Garcia Rocha, Dayane Oliveira","doi":"10.4317/jced.62287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the 50%:50% perceptibility thresholds (PT) and acceptability thresholds (AT) for color differences in ceramic shade tabs observed by dentists and patients using CIEDE2000 color difference formula.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Twenty-two combinations of ceramic shade tabs from the VITA 3D Master shade guide were assembled to be used for the visual comparison analyses. The color difference between each shade tab pair was numerically determined by spectrophotometry using the VITA EasyShade V, and calculated using the CIEDE2000 formula (ΔE00). Twenty dentists and twenty patients were recruited for this study. All participants performed the visual assessment of the provided shade tab pairs under D65 illumination and a grey background, and requested to determine if they could perceive a color difference between them (PT) and whether they considered the combination clinically acceptable (AT). The correlation between numeric data of color difference between the shade tabs, and the perceptibility and acceptability thresholds given by the participants was analyzed by logistic regression (α=0.05; β=0.0085).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PT for dentists was ΔE00= 2.29, and ΔE00= 2.27 for patients. The AT for dentists was ΔE00=2,41, and ΔE00=2,83 for patients. The results showed a statistically significant difference between PT and AT thresholds for both dentists and patients. However, there was no statistically significant differences in PT (<i>p</i>=0.39) or AT (<i>p</i>=0.54) between patients and dentists.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, it was possible to conclude that while the PT and AT vary significantly within each group, they are statistically similar between dentists and patients when discriminating color differences in ceramic tabs. <b>Key words:</b>Color difference, esthetic, aesthetic, spectrophotometry, CIEDE2000.</p>","PeriodicalId":15376,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry","volume":"16 12","pages":"e1509-e1516"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11733899/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.62287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 50%:50% perceptibility thresholds (PT) and acceptability thresholds (AT) for color differences in ceramic shade tabs observed by dentists and patients using CIEDE2000 color difference formula.

Material and methods: Twenty-two combinations of ceramic shade tabs from the VITA 3D Master shade guide were assembled to be used for the visual comparison analyses. The color difference between each shade tab pair was numerically determined by spectrophotometry using the VITA EasyShade V, and calculated using the CIEDE2000 formula (ΔE00). Twenty dentists and twenty patients were recruited for this study. All participants performed the visual assessment of the provided shade tab pairs under D65 illumination and a grey background, and requested to determine if they could perceive a color difference between them (PT) and whether they considered the combination clinically acceptable (AT). The correlation between numeric data of color difference between the shade tabs, and the perceptibility and acceptability thresholds given by the participants was analyzed by logistic regression (α=0.05; β=0.0085).

Results: The PT for dentists was ΔE00= 2.29, and ΔE00= 2.27 for patients. The AT for dentists was ΔE00=2,41, and ΔE00=2,83 for patients. The results showed a statistically significant difference between PT and AT thresholds for both dentists and patients. However, there was no statistically significant differences in PT (p=0.39) or AT (p=0.54) between patients and dentists.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it was possible to conclude that while the PT and AT vary significantly within each group, they are statistically similar between dentists and patients when discriminating color differences in ceramic tabs. Key words:Color difference, esthetic, aesthetic, spectrophotometry, CIEDE2000.

陶瓷色差的可感知性和可接受性阈值:牙医和患者的比较。
背景:本研究的目的是利用CIEDE2000色差公式评估牙医和患者观察到的陶瓷色差的50%:50%感知阈值(PT)和可接受阈值(AT)。材料和方法:将来自VITA 3D Master遮光指南的22种陶瓷遮光片组合在一起,用于视觉比较分析。每个色度标签对之间的色差通过使用VITA EasyShade V分光光度法进行数值测定,并使用CIEDE2000公式计算(ΔE00)。这项研究招募了20名牙医和20名患者。所有参与者在D65照明和灰色背景下对提供的阴影标签对进行视觉评估,并要求确定他们是否可以感知它们之间的色差(PT)以及他们是否认为该组合临床上可接受(AT)。采用logistic回归分析色差数值数据与被试的感知阈值和可接受阈值之间的相关性(α=0.05;β= 0.0085)。结果:牙医的PT为ΔE00= 2.29,患者的PT为ΔE00= 2.27。牙医的AT为ΔE00=2,41,患者的AT为ΔE00=2,83。结果显示牙医和患者的PT和AT阈值有统计学上的显著差异。然而,患者和牙医在PT (p=0.39)和AT (p=0.54)方面无统计学差异。结论:在本研究的局限性内,可以得出这样的结论:虽然PT和AT在每组中都有显著差异,但在牙医和患者之间,在区分陶瓷标签的颜色差异时,它们在统计学上是相似的。关键词:色差,审美,审美,分光光度法,CIEDE2000
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
118
期刊介绍: Indexed in PUBMED, PubMed Central® (PMC) since 2012 and SCOPUSJournal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry is an Open Access (free access on-line) - http://www.medicinaoral.com/odo/indice.htm. The aim of the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry is: - Periodontology - Community and Preventive Dentistry - Esthetic Dentistry - Biomaterials and Bioengineering in Dentistry - Operative Dentistry and Endodontics - Prosthetic Dentistry - Orthodontics - Oral Medicine and Pathology - Odontostomatology for the disabled or special patients - Oral Surgery
×
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