Department of Conservative Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champlion St, Alexandria, Egypt.
Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 8;12(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02263-9.
Shade determination is a critical step for the fabrication of a satisfactory restoration. Visual shade selection with conventional shade guides is subjective and influenced by variables related to light, observer, and object. Shade selection devices have been introduced to provide subjective and quantitative shade values. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the color difference for shade selection with visual and instrumental methods.
An initial search was conducted on databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) in addition to a manual search through references of identified articles. Studies comparing the accuracy of visual and instrumental shade selection based on ΔΕ were included in data synthesis. Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the effect size for global and subgroup meta-analysis using the inverse variance weighted method and random-effects model (P ˂ 0.05). Results were presented as forest plots.
The authors identified 1776 articles from the initial search. Seven in vivo studies were included in the qualitative analysis of which six studies were included in the meta-analysis. For the global meta-analysis, the pooled mean (95% CI) was - 1.10 (- 1.92, - 0.27). Test for overall effect showed that instrumental methods were significantly more accurate than visual methods with significantly less ΔΕ (P = 0.009). Test for subgroup difference showed that the type of instrumental shade selection method used had a significant effect on accuracy (P ˂ 0.001). Instrumental methods including spectrophotometer, digital camera, and smartphone showed significantly better accuracy compared with visual shade selection (P ˂ 0.05). The greatest mean difference was found between the smartphone and visual method with a mean (95% CI) of - 2.98 (- 3.37, - 2.59) with P ˂ 0.001 followed by digital camera and spectrophotometer. There was no significant difference in accuracy between IOS and visual shade selection (P = 1.00).
Instrumental shade selection with a spectrophotometer, digital camera, and smartphone showed significantly better shade matching compared with a conventional shade guide, whereas IOS did not improve the shade matching significantly compared with shade guides.
PROSPERO CRD42022356545.
色调确定是制作令人满意的修复体的关键步骤。传统比色板的视觉比色选择具有主观性，并受到与光、观察者和物体相关的变量的影响。比色选择设备的引入提供了主观和定量的色调值。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较视觉和仪器方法在色调选择方面的色差值。
在数据库（PubMed 中的 MEDLINE、Scopus 和 Web of Science）中进行初步搜索，并通过已确定文章的参考文献进行手动搜索。数据综合中纳入了比较视觉和仪器比色选择基于ΔΕ准确性的研究。使用逆方差加权法和随机效应模型（P ˂ 0.05）计算均值差（MD）和 95%置信区间（CI）以估计总体和亚组荟萃分析的效应大小。结果以森林图呈现。
作者从初步搜索中确定了 1776 篇文章。7 项体内研究纳入定性分析，其中 6 项研究纳入荟萃分析。对于全球荟萃分析，汇总均值（95%CI）为-1.10（-1.92，-0.27）。总体效果检验表明，仪器方法比视觉方法更准确，色差值明显更小（P=0.009）。亚组差异检验表明，仪器比色选择方法的类型对准确性有显著影响（P ˂ 0.001）。与视觉比色选择相比，分光光度计、数码相机和智能手机等仪器方法显示出显著更高的准确性（P ˂ 0.05）。智能手机与视觉方法之间的平均差异最大，平均值（95%CI）为-2.98（-3.37，-2.59），P ˂ 0.001，其次是数码相机和分光光度计。IOS 与视觉比色选择的准确性无显著差异（P=1.00）。
与传统比色板相比，分光光度计、数码相机和智能手机等仪器比色选择在色调匹配方面表现出明显更好的效果，而 IOS 与比色板相比，在色调匹配方面没有显著改善。
PROSPERO CRD42022356545。
