Dozić Alma, Kleverlaan Cornelis J, El-Zohairy Ahmed, Feilzer Albert J, Khashayar Ghazal
Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Prosthodont. 2007 Mar-Apr;16(2):93-100. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00163.x.
Visual tooth color assessment is neither accurate nor precise due to various subjective and objective factors. As newly developed tooth color-measuring devices for dental application provide the possibility of a more objective means of color determination, their performances in vitro and in vivo must be evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and precision of five commercially available tooth color-measuring devices in standardized and in clinical environments.
In an in vitro study, standards (A1, A2, A3, A3.5, and A4 shade tabs of Vita Lumin) were measured five times with five electronic devices (ShadeScan, Easyshade, Ikam, IdentaColor II, and ShadeEye) by two operators. In an in vivo study, the right upper central incisors of 25 dental students were measured with the same electronic devices by a single operator. Vita shade tab codes were expressed as CIE (International Commission on Illumination) Lab* values and in terms of the precision and accuracy of DeltaE color differences. The Mann-Whitney statistical test was used to analyze the differences between the two operators in the in vitro study, and the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks with the post-hoc Tukey test was used to analyze the accuracy and precision of electronic devices.
No statistically significant difference was found between the different operators in the in vitro study. The obtained precision was Easyshade > ShadeScan approximately equal Ikam > IdentaColor II > ShadeEye. The obtained accuracy was Easyshade > ShadeScan approximately equal Ikam > ShadeEye > IdentaColor II. In the in vivo study, the Easyshade and the Ikam were the most precise, and the ShadeEye and the IdentaColor II were more precise than the ShadeScan. With respect to accuracy, there was no statistical difference between the ShadeScan, Ikam, and the Easyshade. The IdentaColor II was considered inaccurate (DeltaE(a)= 3.4).
In the clinical setting, the Easyshade and Ikam systems were the most reliable. The other devices tested were more reliable in vitro than in vivo.
由于各种主观和客观因素,视觉牙齿颜色评估既不准确也不精确。随着新开发的用于牙科应用的牙齿颜色测量设备提供了一种更客观的颜色确定方法的可能性,必须评估它们在体外和体内的性能。本研究的目的是评估五种市售牙齿颜色测量设备在标准化环境和临床环境中的准确性和精密度。
在一项体外研究中,两名操作人员使用五种电子设备(ShadeScan、Easyshade、Ikam、IdentaColor II和ShadeEye)对标准色板(Vita Lumin的A1、A2、A3、A3.5和A4色标)进行了五次测量。在一项体内研究中,一名操作人员使用相同的电子设备对25名牙科学生的右上中切牙进行了测量。Vita色标代码表示为CIE(国际照明委员会)Lab*值,并根据DeltaE颜色差异的精密度和准确性来表示。在体外研究中,使用Mann-Whitney统计检验分析两名操作人员之间的差异,在体内研究中,使用Kruskal-Wallis秩和单向方差分析以及事后Tukey检验来分析电子设备的准确性和精密度。
在体外研究中,不同操作人员之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。所获得的精密度为Easyshade > ShadeScan约等于Ikam > IdentaColor II > ShadeEye。所获得的准确性为Easyshade > ShadeScan约等于Ikam > ShadeEye > IdentaColor II。在体内研究中,Easyshade和Ikam最精确,ShadeEye和IdentaColor II比ShadeScan更精确。在准确性方面,ShadeScan、Ikam和Easyshade之间没有统计学差异。IdentaColor II被认为不准确(DeltaE(a)= 3.4)。
在临床环境中,Easyshade和Ikam系统最可靠。测试的其他设备在体外比在体内更可靠。