Hein Sascha, Nold Julian, Masannek Matthias, Westland Stephen, Spies Benedikt C, Wrbas Karl Thomas
Graduate School of Colour Science and Technology, School of Design, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Center for Dental Medicine, Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Clin Oral Investig. 2025 Jan 2;29(1):39. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06124-0.
The study aimed to assess the percent correct shade identification of four intraoral scanners (IOS) and a spectrophotometer, focusing on how reliably each device selects the correct tooth shade compared to a visual observer's selection. The research question addresses how much clinicians can trust the device-selected shade without visual verification.
Sixteen participants with natural, unrestored teeth were included. The teeth evaluated were tooth 21 (left maxillary central incisor), tooth 23 (left maxillary canine), and tooth 26 (first left maxillary molar). Tooth color was measured using four IOS devices and the Vita Easyshade V in three regions: incisal, middle, and cervical. The nearest 3D Master shade selected by each device was compared to the visual observer's selection. The percent exact match, acceptable match (> 1.2, ≤ 2.7 ∆E), and mismatch type A (< 2.7, ≤ 5.4 ∆E) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using a chi-square test with a 95% confidence level.
The overall clinical pass rate was highest for Carestream (78.2%), followed by Easyshade (63.5%), Primescan (51.2%), Trios (39.5%), and Medit (31.3%). Carestream also recorded the highest rate of mismatch type A (47.7%). Significant differences between devices were observed for all categories (p < 0.05).
Carestream demonstrated the highest overall clinical pass rate, while Medit exhibited the lowest. The study highlights the variability between devices in shade matching performance.
This study highlights the importance of considering device performance when relying on IOS or spectrophotometers for shade selection without visual assessment, as the reliability can vary significantly across devices.
本研究旨在评估四种口腔内扫描仪（IOS）和一台分光光度计的颜色匹配正确率，重点关注与视觉观察者的选择相比，每种设备选择正确牙齿颜色的可靠性。研究问题是临床医生在不进行视觉验证的情况下，对设备选择的颜色能有多大程度的信任。
纳入16名拥有天然、未修复牙齿的参与者。评估的牙齿为21号牙（左上颌中切牙）、23号牙（左上颌尖牙）和26号牙（左上颌第一磨牙）。使用四种IOS设备和Vita Easyshade V在三个区域测量牙齿颜色：切端、中部和颈部。将每个设备选择的最接近的3D Master色号与视觉观察者的选择进行比较。计算完全匹配的百分比、可接受匹配（> 1.2，≤ 2.7 ∆E）和不匹配类型A（< 2.7，≤ 5.4 ∆E）。使用95%置信水平的卡方检验进行统计分析。
Carestream的总体临床通过率最高（78.2%），其次是Easyshade（63.5%）、Primescan（51.2%）、Trios（39.5%）和Medit（31.3%）。Carestream的不匹配类型A发生率也最高（47.7%）。在所有类别中均观察到设备之间存在显著差异（p < 0.05）。
Carestream的总体临床通过率最高，而Medit最低。该研究突出了设备在颜色匹配性能方面的差异。
本研究强调了在不进行视觉评估而依靠IOS或分光光度计进行颜色选择时，考虑设备性能的重要性，因为不同设备的可靠性可能有显著差异。
