Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2010 Dec;22(6):379-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00370.x.
This study evaluated the color parameters of resin composite shade guides determined using a colorimeter and digital imaging method.
Four composite shade guides, namely: two nanohybrid (Grandio [Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany]; Premise [KerrHawe SA, Bioggio, Switzerland]) and two hybrid (Charisma [Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH & Co. KG, Hanau, Germany]; Filtek Z250 [3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany]) were evaluated. Ten shade tabs were selected (A1, A2, A3, A3,5, A4, B1, B2, B3, C2, C3) from each shade guide. CIE Lab values were obtained using digital imaging and a colorimeter (ShadeEye NCC Dental Chroma Meter, Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan). The data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc test.
Overall, the mean ΔE values from different composite pairs demonstrated statistically significant differences when evaluated with the colorimeter (p < 0.001) but there was no significant difference with the digital imaging method (p = 0.099). With both measurement methods in total, 80% of the shade guide pairs from different composites (97/120) showed color differences greater than 3.7 (moderately perceptible mismatch), and 49% (59/120) had obvious mismatch (ΔE > 6.8). For all shade pairs evaluated, the most significant shade mismatches were obtained between Grandio-Filtek Z250 (p = 0.021) and Filtek Z250-Premise (p = 0.01) regarding ΔE mean values, whereas the best shade match was between Grandio-Charisma (p = 0.255) regardless of the measurement method.
The best color match (mean ΔE values) was recorded for A1, A2, and A3 shade pairs in both methods. When proper object-camera distance, digital camera settings, and suitable illumination conditions are provided, digital imaging method could be used in the assessment of color parameters. Interchanging use of shade guides from different composite systems should be avoided during color selection.
本研究评估了使用比色计和数字成像方法确定的树脂复合比色指南的颜色参数。
评估了四种复合比色指南，即两种纳米复合（Voco 公司的 Grandio [德国库克斯港]；KerrHawe SA 的 Premise [瑞士比格gio]）和两种混合复合（Heraeus Kulzer 公司的 Charisma [德国哈瑙]；3M ESPE 公司的 Filtek Z250 [德国塞费尔德]）。从每个比色指南中选择了 10 个比色片（A1、A2、A3、A3.5、A4、B1、B2、B3、C2、C3）。使用数字成像和比色计（Shofu 公司的 ShadeEye NCC Dental Chroma Meter，日本京都）获得 CIE Lab 值。使用双向方差分析和 Bonferroni 事后检验对数据进行分析。
总体而言，使用比色计评估不同复合比色指南的平均ΔE 值存在统计学显著差异（p < 0.001），但使用数字成像方法无显著差异（p = 0.099）。使用两种测量方法，来自不同复合材料的 80%（97/120）的比色指南对显示出大于 3.7 的颜色差异（可察觉的中等不匹配），49%（59/120）具有明显的不匹配（ΔE > 6.8）。对于评估的所有比色对，在平均ΔE 值方面，Grandio-Filtek Z250 之间的颜色不匹配最显著（p = 0.021），而 Filtek Z250-Premise 之间的颜色不匹配最显著（p = 0.01），而无论使用哪种测量方法，Grandio-Charisma 之间的颜色匹配最佳（p = 0.255）。
在两种方法中，A1、A2 和 A3 比色对的颜色匹配（平均ΔE 值）最佳。在提供适当的物距、数码相机设置和合适的照明条件的情况下，数字成像方法可用于评估颜色参数。在颜色选择过程中，应避免在不同的复合系统之间互换使用比色指南。
