Floriani Franciele, Jurado Carlos A, Abuhammoud Salahaldeen, Vargas Marcos, Fischer Nicholas G, Rojas-Rueda Silvia, Lopes Guilherme Carpena
Department of Prosthodontics, The University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Division of Operative Dentistry, Department of General Dentistry, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Dentistry, Memphis, TN 38103, USA.
Dent J (Basel). 2024 Mar 4;12(3):62. doi: 10.3390/dj12030062.
We compared the repeatability of the shade determination of resin composite restorations and acrylic teeth in light and darker shades at baseline and after an aging process through two digital tooth color-matching methods: using a Trios 3Shape intraoral scanner and using a Vita Easyshade Compact spectrophotometer.
Forty upper central incisor acrylic teeth in the shade A1 ( = 10) and A3 ( = 10) were randomly assigned to be restored with Filtek Bulk Fill in the shade A1 ( = 10) or A3 ( = 10). Subsequently, 20 Class V cavities were prepared in a standardized manner (mesio-distal = 3.0 mm, cervical-occlusal = 2.0 mm, depth = 1.5 mm). Cavities were restored using an universal adhesive system and resin composite in two increments and were light-cured. The shade difference between the resin composite Class V restorations in acrylic teeth of the A1 and A3 shades was evaluated at baseline and after aging. Aging was simulated using ultraviolet light for 120 h. An Easyshade device and an intraoral scanner were used under D65 illumination. Measurements were taken five times, on top of the restoration and on the acrylic teeth, in a randomized manner.
Data analysis was on the calculation of the arithmetic mean for the percentage of repeatability conducted by the Trios scanner and the Easyshade device. There was no statistically significant comparison between the shade measurement devices ( > 0.05). At baseline, the repeatability for both the Trios intraoral scanner and the Vita Easyshade Compact device for artificial teeth in the shades A1 and A3 was 100%. After aging, the trueness recorded by the intraoral scanner and the Easyshade device for artificial teeth in the shade A1 was 80%. For Class V restoration with shade A1, the intraoral scanner recorded 80% trueness and the Easyshade device recorded 60% trueness at baseline. For shade A3, the intraoral scanner recorded 60% trueness and the Easyshade device recorded 60% trueness.
The intraoral scanner and Easyshade device are reliable for baseline shade selection, but their accuracy decreases after aging, particularly for darker shades.
我们通过两种数字牙齿颜色匹配方法，比较了树脂复合材料修复体和丙烯酸牙齿在基线时以及老化过程后浅色和深色色调的颜色测定重复性：使用Trios 3Shape口腔内扫描仪和Vita Easyshade Compact分光光度计。
将40颗A1色（n = 10）和A3色（n = 10）的上颌中切牙丙烯酸牙齿随机分配，分别用A1色（n = 10）或A3色（n = 10）的Filtek Bulk Fill进行修复。随后，以标准化方式制备20个V类洞（近远中径 = 3.0 mm，颈 - 牙合径 = 2.0 mm，深度 = 1.5 mm）。使用通用粘结系统和树脂复合材料分两层修复洞体，并进行光固化。在基线时和老化后，评估A1和A3色丙烯酸牙齿中树脂复合材料V类修复体之间的颜色差异。使用紫外线照射120小时模拟老化。在D65照明条件下，使用Easyshade设备和口腔内扫描仪。在修复体顶部和丙烯酸牙齿上随机进行五次测量。
数据分析基于计算Trios扫描仪和Easyshade设备进行的重复性百分比的算术平均值。颜色测量设备之间没有统计学上的显著差异（P > 0.05）。在基线时，Trios口腔内扫描仪和Vita Easyshade Compact设备对A1和A3色人造牙齿的重复性均为100%。老化后，口腔内扫描仪和Easyshade设备对A1色人造牙齿记录的真实性为80%。对于A1色的V类修复体，基线时口腔内扫描仪记录的真实性为80%，Easyshade设备记录的真实性为60%。对于A3色，口腔内扫描仪记录的真实性为60%，Easyshade设备记录的真实性为60%。
口腔内扫描仪和Easyshade设备在基线颜色选择时可靠，但老化后其准确性降低，尤其是对于深色色调。
