Wee Alvin G, Lindsey Delwin T, Shroyer Kathryn M, Johnston William M
Division of Oral Facial Prosthetics / Dental Oncology, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska 68198-1225, USA.
J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Aug;98(2):101-9. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60043-2.
Limited studies have indicated that an alternative small color difference formula would be more appropriate for use in dentistry.
The purposes of this study were to determine which color difference formula provides a superior degree of fit for judgments of perceptibility and acceptability and to determine if different groups of evaluators have different levels of perceptibility and acceptability for each color difference formula.
Each observer from 4 groups (4 dentists, 4 dental assistants, 4 technicians, and 4 patients)made independent observations of perceptibility and acceptability judgments on pairs of opaque porcelain (VitaOmega 900) disks (14 mm in diameter by 3 mm thick). Color differences of the pairs were calculated using DeltaE*(ab), DeltaE(CMC)(l:c), and DeltaE(2000) color difference formulas, and the observer judgments were regressed to each color difference in dependently for perceptibility and acceptability. The area under the receiver operator curves was calculated and ranked, and the optimal factor for the CMC (Colour Measurement Committee, Society of Dyers and Colourists, Great Britain) color difference formula was chosen. A repeated measures maximum likelihood ANOVA (alpha=.05) was applied to determine statistical significance of fit among the observer groups, and the various color difference formulas for both perceptibility and acceptability. Tukey-Kramer Adjustment (alpha=.05) was used as a post hoc test.
A difference in the degree of fit of the judgments of color differences was found for the 3 formulas (P=.001)and the 2 judgment types (P<.001) studied, with no significant interaction (P=.979). The Tukey-Kramer test identified a lower degree of fit for the DeltaE*(ab) formula compared to DeltaE(CMC)(2:3) and DeltaE(2000) formulas. No significant difference was found in the mean judgment levels among the observer groups (P=.474) studied, nor within any interaction (P>.404).
DeltaE(2000) and DeltaE(CMC)(2:3) color difference formulas provide a better fit to the calculated color differences,therefore providing better indicators of human perceptibility and acceptability of color differences between tooth colors.
有限的研究表明,一种替代性的小色差公式在牙科应用中可能更合适。
本研究的目的是确定哪种色差公式在感知度和可接受性判断方面具有更高的拟合度,并确定不同评估者群体对每种色差公式的感知度和可接受性水平是否不同。
4组人员(4名牙医、4名牙科助手、4名技术人员和4名患者)中的每位观察者对一对不透明瓷盘(Vita Omega 900,直径14毫米,厚3毫米)的感知度和可接受性进行独立判断。使用DeltaE*(ab)、DeltaE(CMC)(l:c)和DeltaE(2000)色差公式计算这对瓷盘的色差,并将观察者的判断分别与每种色差进行回归分析,以评估感知度和可接受性。计算并排列接收者操作曲线下的面积,选择CMC(英国染色师与色彩学家协会色彩测量委员会)色差公式的最佳因子。应用重复测量最大似然方差分析(α = 0.05)来确定观察者群体之间以及感知度和可接受性的各种色差公式之间拟合度的统计学显著性。使用Tukey-Kramer校正(α = 0.05)作为事后检验。
在所研究的3种公式(P = 0.001)和2种判断类型(P < 0.001)中,发现色差判断的拟合度存在差异,且无显著交互作用(P = 0.979)。Tukey-Kramer检验表明,与DeltaE(CMC)(2:3)和DeltaE(2000)公式相比,DeltaE*(ab)公式的拟合度较低。在所研究的观察者群体之间(P = 0.474)以及任何交互作用内(P > 0.404),平均判断水平均未发现显著差异。
DeltaE(2000)和DeltaE(CMC)(2:3)色差公式与计算出的色差拟合度更好,因此能更好地指示人对牙齿颜色之间色差的感知度和可接受性。