研究目的
This in vitro study compared the shade matching abilities of an intraoral spectrophotometer and the conventional visual method using two shade guides. The objectives were to determine accuracies and interrater agreement of both methods and effectiveness of two shade guides with either method.
研究成果
The visual method was more accurate than the spectrophotometric method, but the spectrophotometer had better interrater agreement. VITAPAN Classical? was more accurate with the spectrophotometer, while VITAPAN 3D Master? was better with the visual method. Prosthodontists showed higher accuracy with VITAPAN 3D Master?. A combination of both methods is recommended for optimal outcomes.
研究不足
The study used shade tabs as targets, which may not fully represent natural teeth. Only exact matches were considered accurate, potentially reducing spectrophotometer accuracy. One spectrophotometer was used, and probe positioning was arbitrary without a device for replication. Calibration issues and machine errors may have affected results.
1:Experimental Design and Method Selection:
The study used an in vitro design to compare shade matching methods. Two shade guide systems (VITAPAN Classical? and VITAPAN 3D Master?) were employed. The visual method involved human examiners, and the spectrophotometric method used an intraoral spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade?).
2:Sample Selection and Data Sources:
Target control shade tabs were selected from the shade guides (five from VITAPAN 3D Master? and four from VITAPAN Classical?). Ten examiners with normal color vision participated in the visual method, and two independent examiners used the spectrophotometer.
3:List of Experimental Equipment and Materials:
Equipment included VITAPAN Classical? and VITAPAN 3D Master? shade guides, VITA Easyshade? spectrophotometer, tape for obscuring tabs, gray card for eye rest, and statistical software (SPSS 16, AgreeStat 2013.1, MedCalc).
4:1, MedCalc).
Experimental Procedures and Operational Workflow:
4. Experimental Procedures and Operational Workflow: For the visual method, examiners matched masked target tabs under standardized lighting, with each tab matched three times. For the spectrophotometric method, examiners used the spectrophotometer in 'shade tab' mode with five repetitions per tab, calibrated after each use. Data were recorded in a double-blinded manner.
5:Data Analysis Methods:
Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests for accuracy comparisons, Cohen's kappa for interrater agreement in spectrophotometric method, and Fleiss kappa for visual method. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
独家科研数据包,助您复现前沿成果,加速创新突破
获取完整内容