Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Dental Materials, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Oper Dent. 2012 Jan-Feb;37(1):12-20. doi: 10.2341/11-161-C. Epub 2011 Sep 26.
The objective of this study was to clinically test whether the data from two different spectrophotometers, based on spot and surface measurements, can be compared.
Under standardized clinical conditions two devices (Vita Easyshade and Spectro Shade-Micro) were used to record the color of three areas (cervical, middle, and incisal) per tooth for three upper maxillary anterior teeth in 102 participants. Each position was measured three times to attain an average for the CIE Lab* coordinates and to attain the corresponding Vita Classical shade tab integrated in the software of both devices. Vita tabs were also described as Lab* values using earlier published translations so that color differences (ΔE) could be calculated between them.
The regression analysis between the two devices showed that the independent correlation coefficients of the Lab* values are low. Yet when the suggested shade codes are compared with Vita colors instead of Lab*, 40% of the cases were equal and 51% were clinically acceptable.
According to this study the two devices do not give a comparable shade selection output, and thus the exchange of Lab* values between the two spectrophotometers cannot be recommended.
本研究旨在临床检验两种基于点测和表面测量的分光光度计所获得的数据是否可以进行比较。
在标准化临床条件下，两台设备（Vita Easyshade 和 Spectro Shade-Micro）用于记录 102 名参与者的 3 颗上颌前牙的 3 个区域（颈、中、切）的颜色。每个位置测量 3 次，以获得 CIE Lab坐标的平均值，并获得两个设备软件中集成的相应 Vita 经典比色片。使用先前发表的翻译，Vita 比色片也被描述为 Lab值，以便计算它们之间的颜色差异（ΔE）。
两台设备之间的回归分析表明，Lab值的独立相关系数较低。然而，当比较建议的比色码与 Vita 颜色而不是 Lab值时，40%的情况是相等的，51%是临床可接受的。
根据本研究，两台设备不能给出可比的比色选择输出，因此不能推荐在两台分光光度计之间交换 Lab*值。
