STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: There are several electronic shade-matching instruments available for clinical use; unfortunately, there are limited acceptable in vitro models to evaluate their reliability and accuracy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of a dental clinical shade-matching instrument. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using the shade-matching instrument (ShadeScan), color measurements were made of 3 commercial shade guides (VITA Classical, VITA 3D-Master, and Chromascop). Shade tabs were selected and placed in the middle of a gingival matrix (Shofu Gummy), with tabs of the same nominal shade from additional shade guides placed on both sides. Measurements were made of the central region of the shade tab inside a black box. For the reliability assessment, each shade tab from each of the 3 shade guide types was measured 10 times. For the accuracy assessment, each shade tab from 10 guides of each of the 3 types evaluated was measured once. Reliability, accuracy, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each shade tab. Differences were determined by 1-way ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure. RESULTS: Reliability of ShadeScan was as follows: VITA Classical = 95.0%, VITA 3D-Master = 91.2%, and Chromascop = 76.5%. Accuracy of ShadeScan was as follows: VITA Classical = 65.0%, VITA 3D-Master = 54.2%, Chromascop = 84.5%. CONCLUSIONS: This in vitro study showed a varying degree of reliability and accuracy for ShadeScan, depending on the type of shade guide system used.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: There are several electronic shade-matching instruments available for clinical use; unfortunately, there are limited acceptable in vitro models to evaluate their reliability and accuracy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of a dental clinical shade-matching instrument. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using the shade-matching instrument (ShadeScan), color measurements were made of 3 commercial shade guides (VITA Classical, VITA 3D-Master, and Chromascop). Shade tabs were selected and placed in the middle of a gingival matrix (Shofu Gummy), with tabs of the same nominal shade from additional shade guides placed on both sides. Measurements were made of the central region of the shade tab inside a black box. For the reliability assessment, each shade tab from each of the 3 shade guide types was measured 10 times. For the accuracy assessment, each shade tab from 10 guides of each of the 3 types evaluated was measured once. Reliability, accuracy, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each shade tab. Differences were determined by 1-way ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure. RESULTS: Reliability of ShadeScan was as follows: VITA Classical = 95.0%, VITA 3D-Master = 91.2%, and Chromascop = 76.5%. Accuracy of ShadeScan was as follows: VITA Classical = 65.0%, VITA 3D-Master = 54.2%, Chromascop = 84.5%. CONCLUSIONS: This in vitro study showed a varying degree of reliability and accuracy for ShadeScan, depending on the type of shade guide system used.
Authors: Anja Ratzmann; Christan Schwahn; Anja Treichel; Andreas Faltermeier; Alexander Welk Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 2.151