Department of Prosthodontics, Study of Dentistry, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
J Dent. 2011 Dec;39 Suppl 3:e17-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.09.008. Epub 2011 Oct 1.
The aim of the present study was to compare results of non-dental (conventional) and dental colour discrimination tests (customized, shade guide test), to evaluate influence of profession, gender and age of colour normal dentists and laboratory technicians on colour discrimination results and to evaluate results of colour deficient laypersons.
A total of 36 colour normal dental professionals, all volunteers were divided into two groups consisting of 18 participants each: dentists (DDS) and laboratory technicians (CDT). In addition, a group 15 colour deficient males also volunteered (CDP). Colour discrimination was examined using Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test and total error scores (TES) were calculated. Participants performed a dentistry related colour discrimination test by matching 26 pairs of shade tabs. Shade guide scores (3DS) were calculated. These tests were performed under the controlled conditions of a viewing booth. Mean values and standard deviations were determined. ANOVA, Mann-Whitney test, t-test and Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) were used for result analysis.
TES and 3DS were correlated for colour normal observers, r = 0.47 (p < 0.01). No statistically significant differences in TES and 3DS by profession, gender and age were recorded. TES of 159 (83) and 3DS of 6.7 (2.7) were recorded for colour deficient laypersons. Based on TES, 33% of colour deficient laypersons had average discrimination, whilst 67% had low discrimination.
Within the limitation of this study, it was concluded that results of non-dental and dental colour discrimination tests were correlated, and that profession (DDS/CDT), gender and age gender did not influence colour discrimination of colour normal participants.
Although colour and appearance of dental restorations are of paramount importance for the aesthetic outcome, colour vision of dental professionals is not routinely tested. This paper validates and recommends the usage of dental shade guides for a simple, affordable and understandable testing of colour vision, either as a sole test or complementing conventional (professional) tests.
本研究旨在比较非牙科(常规)和牙科颜色辨别测试(定制、比色板测试)的结果,评估颜色正常牙医和实验室技术人员的专业、性别和年龄对颜色辨别结果的影响,并评估色觉缺陷非专业人士的结果。
共有 36 名颜色正常的牙科专业人员(均为志愿者)分为两组,每组 18 人:牙医(DDS)和实验室技术人员(CDT)。此外,还招募了 15 名男性色觉缺陷志愿者(CDP)。使用 Farnsworth-Munsell 100 色调测试检查颜色辨别能力,并计算总误差分数(TES)。参与者通过匹配 26 对比色片进行与牙科相关的颜色辨别测试。计算比色板得分(3DS)。这些测试是在观察亭的控制条件下进行的。确定平均值和标准差。使用方差分析、曼-惠特尼检验、t 检验和皮尔逊相关系数(r)进行结果分析。
TES 和 3DS 与颜色正常观察者相关,r = 0.47(p < 0.01)。未记录到职业、性别和年龄对 TES 和 3DS 的统计学显著差异。色觉缺陷非专业人士的 TES 为 159(83),3DS 为 6.7(2.7)。根据 TES,33%的色觉缺陷非专业人士具有平均辨别力,而 67%的人具有低辨别力。
在本研究的限制范围内,得出的结论是,非牙科和牙科颜色辨别测试的结果相关,且颜色正常参与者的职业(DDS/CDT)、性别和年龄不影响颜色辨别。
尽管牙齿修复体的颜色和外观对美观效果至关重要,但牙科专业人员的颜色视力并未常规测试。本文验证并推荐使用牙科比色板进行颜色视力的简单、经济实惠且易于理解的测试,无论是作为单独的测试还是补充常规(专业)测试。