视觉比色、口内扫描仪和分光光度计比色的比较：一项临床研究。
A comparison between visual, intraoral scanner, and spectrophotometer shade matching: A clinical study.
机构信息
Doctoral student, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Private practitioner, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
出版信息
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Feb;121(2):271-275. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.004. Epub 2018 Oct 26.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Visual shade matching is subjective and a cause of concern for clinicians. Different measurement devices have been developed to assist in tooth color selection and to achieve better esthetic results. However, consensus is lacking as to which method of tooth shade selection provides more predictable results.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the reliability of different visual and instrumental methods for dental shade matching.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Visual shade matching was performed by 3 experienced clinicians using 2 different shade guides (VITA Classical A1-D4 and VITA Toothguide 3D-MASTER with 29 tabs; VITA Zahnfabrik) with and without the aid of a light-correcting device (Smile Lite; Smile Line). An intraoral scanner (TRIOS; 3Shape A/S) and a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade Advance 4.0; VITA Zahnfabrik) were also used for color shade matching. The instrumental methods were repeated 3 times to determine repeatability. Shade-matching sessions for each method were performed under controlled lighting on the middle third of the maxillary right central incisor of 28 participants. The Fleiss' kappa statistical test was used to assess the reliability of each method. The weighted kappa statistical test was used to assess the agreement between the shades matched by different methods (α=.05).
RESULTS
Instrumental methods were more accurate than visual methods. The best performance was found for the intraoral scanner configured for the 3D-MASTER scale (Fleiss' kappa value of .874) and for the spectrophotometer configured for the VITA Classical scale (Fleiss' kappa value of .805). The best visual shade-matching method was the VITA Classical scale associated with the light-correcting device (Fleiss' kappa value of .322). The Classical scale without the light-correcting device showed the poorest reliability (Fleiss' kappa value of .177) (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Instrumental methods for color shade matching were more reliable than the visual methods tested.
问题陈述
视觉比色是主观的，也是临床医生关注的问题。已经开发出不同的测量设备来协助选择牙齿颜色，并实现更好的美观效果。然而，对于哪种牙齿比色选择方法提供更可预测的结果，尚未达成共识。
目的
本临床研究的目的是比较不同视觉和仪器比色方法的可靠性。
材料和方法
3 名经验丰富的临床医生使用 2 种不同的比色指南（VITA Classical A1-D4 和 VITA Toothguide 3D-MASTER，带 29 个标签；VITA Zahnfabrik）和（或）无光源校正设备（Smile Lite；Smile Line）进行视觉比色。还使用口腔内扫描仪（TRIOS；3Shape A/S）和分光光度计（VITA Easyshade Advance 4.0；VITA Zahnfabrik）进行颜色比色。仪器方法重复 3 次以确定可重复性。每种方法的比色会话均在 28 名参与者上颌右侧中切牙的中三分之一在受控光照下进行。使用 Fleiss'kappa 统计检验评估每种方法的可靠性。使用加权 kappa 统计检验评估不同方法匹配的色调之间的一致性（α=.05）。
结果
仪器方法比视觉方法更准确。在为 3D-MASTER 量表配置的口腔内扫描仪（Fleiss'kappa 值为.874）和为 VITA Classical 量表配置的分光光度计（Fleiss'kappa 值为.805）中发现了最佳性能。最佳的视觉比色方法是与光源校正设备关联的 VITA Classical 量表（Fleiss'kappa 值为.322）。没有光源校正设备的 Classical 量表显示出最差的可靠性（Fleiss'kappa 值为.177）（P<.05）。
结论
与所测试的视觉方法相比，颜色比色的仪器方法更可靠。
Zotero 插件