Sirintawat Nattapong, Leelaratrungruang Tanyaporn, Poovarodom Pongsakorn, Kiattavorncharoen Sirichai, Amornsettachai Parinya
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Education Program in Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Nov 11;21(22):7490. doi: 10.3390/s21227490.
This study aimed to investigate and compare the reliability and accuracy of tooth shade selection in the model using 30 milled crowns via five methods: (1) digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera with twin flash (TF) and polarized filter (DSLR + TF), (2) DSLR camera with a ring flash (RF) and polarized filter (DSLR + RF), (3) smartphone camera with light corrector and polarized filter (SMART), (4) intraoral scanner (IOS), and (5) spectrophotometer (SPEC). These methods were compared with the control group or manufacturer's shade. The CIE Lab values (L, a, and b values) were obtained from five of the methods to indicate the color of the tooth. Adobe Photoshop was used to generate CIE Lab values from the digital photographs. The reliability was calculated from the intraclass correlation based on two repetitions. The accuracy was calculated from; (a) ΔE calculated by the formula comparing each method to the control group, (b) study and control groups were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and (c) the relationship between study and control groups were calculated using Spearman's correlation. The reliability of the intraclass correlation of L, a, and b values obtained from the five methods showed satisfactory correlations ranging from 0.732-0.996, 0.887-0.994, and 0.884-0.999, respectively. The ΔE from all groups had statistically significant differences when compared to the border of clinical acceptance (ΔE = 6.8). The ΔE from DSLR + TF, DSLR + RF, SMART, and SPEC were higher than clinical acceptance (ΔE > 6.8), whereas the ΔE from IOS was 5.96 and all of the L, a, and b values were not statistically significantly different from the manufacturer's shade ( < 0.01). The ΔE of the DSLR + RF group showed the least accuracy (ΔE = 19.98), whereas the ∆E of DSLR + TF, SMART, and SPEC showed similar accuracy ∆E (ΔE = 10.90, 10.57, and 11.57, respectively). The DSLR camera combined with a ring flash system and polarized filter provided the least accuracy. The intraoral scanner provided the highest accuracy. However, tooth shade selection deserves the combination of various techniques and a professional learning curve to establish the most accurate outcome.
本研究旨在通过五种方法,对使用30个铣削冠的模型中牙齿比色的可靠性和准确性进行调查和比较:(1)配备双闪光灯(TF)和偏光滤镜的数码单反(DSLR)相机(DSLR + TF),(2)配备环形闪光灯(RF)和偏光滤镜的数码单反相机(DSLR + RF),(3)配备光校正器和偏光滤镜的智能手机相机(SMART),(4)口内扫描仪(IOS),以及(5)分光光度计(SPEC)。将这些方法与对照组或制造商的色标进行比较。从其中五种方法获取CIE Lab值(L、a和b值)以指示牙齿的颜色。使用Adobe Photoshop从数码照片生成CIE Lab值。可靠性基于两次重复通过组内相关系数计算得出。准确性通过以下方式计算:(a)通过将每种方法与对照组比较的公式计算ΔE,(b)使用Kruskal-Wallis检验分析研究组和对照组,以及(c)使用Spearman相关性计算研究组和对照组之间的关系。从五种方法获得的L、a和b值的组内相关系数的可靠性分别显示出令人满意的相关性,范围为0.732 - 0.996、0.887 - 0.994和0.884 - 0.999。与临床可接受边界(ΔE = 6.8)相比,所有组的ΔE均有统计学显著差异。DSLR + TF、DSLR + RF、SMART和SPEC的ΔE高于临床可接受值(ΔE > 6.8),而IOS的ΔE为5.96,所有L、a和b值与制造商的色标相比均无统计学显著差异(< 0.01)。DSLR + RF组的ΔE显示出最低的准确性(ΔE = 19.98),而DSLR + TF、SMART和SPEC的ΔE显示出相似的准确性ΔE(分别为ΔE = 10.90、10.57和11.57)。配备环形闪光灯系统和偏光滤镜的数码单反相机提供的准确性最低。口内扫描仪提供了最高的准确性。然而,牙齿比色需要多种技术的结合以及专业的学习曲线,以获得最准确的结果。