How reliable and accurate is the shade determination of premolars by spectrophotometry?
Easyshade
L* a* b*
Premolars
Spectrophotometer
Tooth shade determination
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
21
12
2018
accepted:
19
11
2019
pubmed:
16
12
2019
medline:
30
7
2020
entrez:
16
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the reliability and accuracy of spectrophotometric shade determination of premolars and to compare the results with those for incisors. Fifty-seven participants with natural maxillary incisors and premolars were recruited to investigate the research question. The colour of test teeth (incisors, n = 210; premolars, n = 192) was measured by use of the Vita Easyshade Advance (ES-A) and Vita Easyshade V (ES-V). Accuracy was evaluated by rating the shade tab matches recommended by the devices (scale, 1 = excellent match to 3 = mismatch). Inter-device reliability between the ES-A and ES-V for measurement of incisors and premolars was evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). The ratings for the accuracy of the devices were analysed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. A linear regression model was used to evaluate possible independent influencing confounders on the shade match. Inter-device agreement of the ES-A and ES-V for measurement of incisors and premolars was excellent for all colour components (ICC > 0.9). The accuracy of both devices was acceptable to excellent for incisors and premolars, although the ES-V was more accurate than the ES-A (p < 0.001). No significant difference in accuracy was detected between premolars and incisors (p = 0.182). The linear regression model confirmed the bivariate testing. The reliability and accuracy of spectrophotometric shade determination seem comparable for incisors and premolars. The recently introduced ES-V seems more accurate than its predecessor model. Further studies are needed to validate the results of this study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31838595
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-03162-x
pii: 10.1007/s00784-019-03162-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1439-1444Références
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 May;17(4):1161-6
pubmed: 22828935
J Dent. 2010;38 Suppl 2:e2-16
pubmed: 20621154
J Prosthet Dent. 2009 Mar;101(3):193-9
pubmed: 19231572
J Oral Rehabil. 2006 Jan;33(1):31-5
pubmed: 16409514
J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Apr;91(4):389-91
pubmed: 15116043
J Dent. 2009;37 Suppl 1:e15-20
pubmed: 19329240
Int J Prosthodont. 2002 Jan-Feb;15(1):73-8
pubmed: 11887603
J Oral Rehabil. 2007 Aug;34(8):613-21
pubmed: 17650172
Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(5):1473-9
pubmed: 24100636
J Adv Prosthodont. 2018 Jun;10(3):252-258
pubmed: 29930796
J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Feb;63(2):155-62
pubmed: 2304021
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016 Oct-Dec;16(4):352-358
pubmed: 27746599
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Jan;89(1):50-3
pubmed: 12589286
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Sep;30(5):442-448
pubmed: 30144376
Phys Med Biol. 1994 Jul;39(7):1133-42
pubmed: 15552102
Clujul Med. 2015;88(4):537-44
pubmed: 26733753
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15 Suppl 1:S42-8
pubmed: 15000904
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015 Dec 01;16(12):933-8
pubmed: 27018026
Int J Esthet Dent. 2016 Spring;11(1):110-24
pubmed: 26835527
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Apr;115(4):475-81
pubmed: 26548886