Gulden Sinmazisik1, Goksu Trakyali2, Bilge Tarcin3. 1. Associate Professor, Department of Dental Prosthetics Technology, Vocational School of Health Services, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: gsinmazisik@marmara.edu.tr. 2. Private practice, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The ability of dental technician students to match tooth shade with the Vita 3D-Master shade guide and Toothguide Training Box has not been investigated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the shade-matching ability of dental technician students and graduate dentists using the Vita 3D-Master shade guide. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-nine dental technician students (DTS group) and 30 graduate dentists (GD group) participated in this study. The Toothguide Training Box (TTB) was used to train the participants and test their shade-matching abilities. Shade-matching ability was evaluated with 3 exercises and a final test, all of which are components of the TTB. The number of mistakes for each participant for value (L), chroma (c), and hue (h) were recorded during the exercises and the final test, and the mistake ratios were calculated. Color difference (ΔE) values for each shade were calculated from the L*, a*, and b* values of the Vita 3D-Master shade guide for each participant in both groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine statistically significant differences between the L, c, and h mistake ratios of the 2 groups, and the Student t test was used to determine statistically significant differences between the final test scores and the ΔE values of the groups (α=.05). RESULTS: The mistake ratio for L in the GD group was significantly higher than that of the DTS group (P<.05), whereas the mistake ratio for h in the DTS group was higher (P<.001). No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the mistake ratios for c (P>.05). With regard to the final test scores and the ΔE values, no significant differences were found between the groups (P<.001), and the DTS group received higher scores than the GD group (912 and 851). The mean ΔE values for the DTS and GD groups were 1.72 and 2.92. CONCLUSIONS: DTSs made more mistakes in the h parameter than GDs, and GDs made more mistakes in the L parameter than DTSs. With regard to the final test scores and the ΔE values, DTSs were more successful in shade matching than GDs.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The ability of dental technician students to match tooth shade with the Vita 3D-Master shade guide and Toothguide Training Box has not been investigated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the shade-matching ability of dental technician students and graduate dentists using the Vita 3D-Master shade guide. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-nine dental technician students (DTS group) and 30 graduate dentists (GD group) participated in this study. The Toothguide Training Box (TTB) was used to train the participants and test their shade-matching abilities. Shade-matching ability was evaluated with 3 exercises and a final test, all of which are components of the TTB. The number of mistakes for each participant for value (L), chroma (c), and hue (h) were recorded during the exercises and the final test, and the mistake ratios were calculated. Color difference (ΔE) values for each shade were calculated from the L*, a*, and b* values of the Vita 3D-Master shade guide for each participant in both groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine statistically significant differences between the L, c, and h mistake ratios of the 2 groups, and the Student t test was used to determine statistically significant differences between the final test scores and the ΔE values of the groups (α=.05). RESULTS: The mistake ratio for L in the GD group was significantly higher than that of the DTS group (P<.05), whereas the mistake ratio for h in the DTS group was higher (P<.001). No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the mistake ratios for c (P>.05). With regard to the final test scores and the ΔE values, no significant differences were found between the groups (P<.001), and the DTS group received higher scores than the GD group (912 and 851). The mean ΔE values for the DTS and GD groups were 1.72 and 2.92. CONCLUSIONS: DTSs made more mistakes in the h parameter than GDs, and GDs made more mistakes in the L parameter than DTSs. With regard to the final test scores and the ΔE values, DTSs were more successful in shade matching than GDs.