Parameswaran Vidhya, Anilkumar S, Lylajam S, Rajesh C, Narayan Vivek
Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College, Alappuzha, Kerala, India.
Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College, Kottayam, Kerala, India.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016 Oct-Dec;16(4):352-358. doi: 10.4103/0972-4052.176537.
This study compared the shade matching abilities of an intraoral spectrophotometer and the conventional visual method using two shade guides. The results of previous investigations between color perceived by human observers and color assessed by instruments have been inconclusive. The objectives were to determine accuracies and interrater agreement of both methods and effectiveness of two shade guides with either method.
In the visual method, 10 examiners with normal color vision matched target control shade tabs taken from the two shade guides (VITAPAN Classical™ and VITAPAN 3D Master™) with other full sets of the respective shade guides. Each tab was matched 3 times to determine repeatability of visual examiners. The spectrophotometric shade matching was performed by two independent examiners using an intraoral spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade™) with five repetitions for each tab.
Results revealed that visual method had greater accuracy than the spectrophotometer. The spectrophotometer; however, exhibited significantly better interrater agreement as compared to the visual method. While VITAPAN Classical shade guide was more accurate with the spectrophotometer, VITAPAN 3D Master shade guide proved better with visual method.
This study clearly delineates the advantages and limitations of both methods. There were significant differences between the methods with the visual method producing more accurate results than the spectrophotometric method. The spectrophotometer showed far better interrater agreement scores irrespective of the shade guide used. Even though visual shade matching is subjective, it is not inferior and should not be underrated. Judicious combination of both techniques is imperative to attain a successful and esthetic outcome.
本研究比较了口腔内分光光度计与使用两种比色板的传统视觉方法的比色能力。先前关于人类观察者感知的颜色与仪器评估的颜色之间的研究结果尚无定论。目的是确定两种方法的准确性和评分者间一致性，以及两种比色板在每种方法中的有效性。
在视觉方法中，10名色觉正常的检查者将从两种比色板（VITAPAN Classical™和VITAPAN 3D Master™）中取出的目标对照色片与各自比色板的其他全套色片进行匹配。每个色片匹配3次以确定视觉检查者的可重复性。分光光度比色由两名独立检查者使用口腔内分光光度计（VITA Easyshade™）进行，每个色片重复5次。
结果显示视觉方法比分光光度计具有更高的准确性。然而，与视觉方法相比，分光光度计的评分者间一致性明显更好。虽然VITAPAN Classical比色板在分光光度计下更准确，但VITAPAN 3D Master比色板在视觉方法中表现更好。
本研究清楚地描述了两种方法的优缺点。两种方法之间存在显著差异，视觉方法产生的结果比分光光度法更准确。无论使用哪种比色板，分光光度计的评分者间一致性得分都要好得多。尽管视觉比色是主观的，但它并不逊色，不应被低估。明智地结合这两种技术对于获得成功和美观的结果至关重要。
