Paravina Rade D, Majkic Goran, Imai Francisco H, Powers John M
University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston, Houston Biomaterials Research Center, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, Houston, TX 77030-3402, USA.
J Prosthodont. 2007 Jul-Aug;16(4):269-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00189.x. Epub 2007 Apr 23.
One critical prerequisite for dental shade guides is to match the color range and distribution of human teeth. The purpose of this study was to design computer models for dental shade guides and compare them with an existing shade guide. A targeted coverage error for a newly developed shade guide was DeltaE(ab) < 2 with a corresponding CIE2000 value.
A total of 1064 teeth were evaluated in vivo using an intra-oral spectrophotometer. Shade guide models were designed using different methods for representation of the data set, hierarchical clustering, and nonlinear constrained optimization. Coverage error was calculated for both CIELAB and CIE2000 values. Recorded values were compared with coverage error of Vitapan Classical (VC) shade guide. Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples and linear regression were used in statistical analysis.
Coverage error of VC was 4.1 (SD 1.8), ranging from 0.5 to 11.5 DeltaE(ab). Group A shades had the best match for human teeth (43.9%) followed by Groups C (24.1%), B (20.4%), and D (11.7%) shades, respectively. CIELAB coverage error of the newly designed 24-tab shade guide using clustering and optimization was 2.05 (0.95) and 1.96 (0.92), respectively. Corresponding CIE2000 coverage error values were 1.43 (0.68) and 1.40 (0.65), respectively. A significant difference between results obtained using clustering and optimization was determined. CIELAB color differences were greater, but highly correlated as compared with their CIE2000 counterparts (DeltaE(00)= 0.64 x DeltaE(76)+ 0.13, r > 0.99).
This study demonstrated that, compared with existing shade guides, future shade guides can provide either (a) similar coverage of tooth color with fewer tabs, thus simplifying shade matching procedure, or (b) better coverage of tooth color with a similar number of tabs, in both cases increasing the chances of satisfactory matches and, consequently, better esthetics.
Both clustering and optimization enabled better representation of tooth color as compared with an existing dental shade guide. Optimization outperformed clustering and is therefore recommended as a method of choice for representation of tooth color and designing of dental shade guides.
牙齿比色板的一个关键前提是要匹配人类牙齿的颜色范围和分布。本研究的目的是设计牙齿比色板的计算机模型,并将其与现有的比色板进行比较。新开发的比色板的目标覆盖误差为DeltaE(ab)<2,对应CIE2000值。
使用口腔分光光度计对1064颗牙齿进行体内评估。采用不同的数据集表示方法、层次聚类和非线性约束优化设计比色板模型。计算CIELAB和CIE2000值的覆盖误差。将记录的值与维他经典(VC)比色板的覆盖误差进行比较。配对样本的Wilcoxon符号秩检验和线性回归用于统计分析。
VC的覆盖误差为4.1(标准差1.8),DeltaE(ab)范围为0.5至11.5。A组色与人类牙齿的匹配度最佳(43.9%),其次是C组(24.1%)、B组(20.4%)和D组(11.7%)色。使用聚类和优化方法新设计的24片比色板的CIELAB覆盖误差分别为2.05(0.95)和1.96(0.92)。相应的CIE2000覆盖误差值分别为1.43(0.68)和1.40(0.65)。确定了使用聚类和优化方法获得的结果之间存在显著差异。CIELAB颜色差异更大,但与其CIE2000对应值高度相关(DeltaE(00)=0.64×DeltaE(76)+0.13,r>0.99)。
本研究表明,与现有比色板相比,未来的比色板可以(a)用更少的色片提供相似的牙齿颜色覆盖范围,从而简化比色程序,或者(b)用相似数量的色片提供更好的牙齿颜色覆盖范围,在这两种情况下都增加了获得满意匹配的机会,从而实现更好的美观效果。
与现有的牙齿比色板相比,聚类和优化都能更好地呈现牙齿颜色。优化方法优于聚类方法,因此建议将其作为呈现牙齿颜色和设计牙齿比色板的首选方法。