OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the repeatability, interexaminer, and interdevice reliability of two clinically applicable spectrophotometers under laboratory and clinical conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For the in vitro part of the study, measurements were performed by the use of Vita Easyshade Advance 4.0 (ES-A) and the Easyshade V (ES-V) at identical positions on different shade tabs (3D-Master; Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany). To test repeatability, one shade tab was measured 50 times by one operator. To determine interrater and interdevice agreement, two operators used both devices to perform 10 measurements on five different shade tabs. Clinical interdevice and interexaminer reliability was checked with a positioning jig used (15 participants). Measurement accuracy of both devices was evaluated for the recommended color of shade tabs. RESULTS: Repeatability of results from both Easyshades was excellent for all color components (maximum deviation between measurements was ≤0.1 units). Interrater agreement was also perfect (intraclass correlation, ICC = 1.000). Interdevice agreement was lower, but still good (ICC ≥ 0.834). In the clinical environment, interrater and interdevice agreements were similar (ICC > 0.964 and ICC > 0.873). Accuracy was satisfactory for both devices, with both observers in full agreement for nearly 80% of ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Both Easyshades produced reliable and accurate measurements and can therefore be recommended for clinical determination of tooth color. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The outcome of this study might help clinicians estimate the performance of a new digital shade determination device.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the repeatability, interexaminer, and interdevice reliability of two clinically applicable spectrophotometers under laboratory and clinical conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For the in vitro part of the study, measurements were performed by the use of Vita Easyshade Advance 4.0 (ES-A) and the Easyshade V (ES-V) at identical positions on different shade tabs (3D-Master; Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany). To test repeatability, one shade tab was measured 50 times by one operator. To determine interrater and interdevice agreement, two operators used both devices to perform 10 measurements on five different shade tabs. Clinical interdevice and interexaminer reliability was checked with a positioning jig used (15 participants). Measurement accuracy of both devices was evaluated for the recommended color of shade tabs. RESULTS: Repeatability of results from both Easyshades was excellent for all color components (maximum deviation between measurements was ≤0.1 units). Interrater agreement was also perfect (intraclass correlation, ICC = 1.000). Interdevice agreement was lower, but still good (ICC ≥ 0.834). In the clinical environment, interrater and interdevice agreements were similar (ICC > 0.964 and ICC > 0.873). Accuracy was satisfactory for both devices, with both observers in full agreement for nearly 80% of ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Both Easyshades produced reliable and accurate measurements and can therefore be recommended for clinical determination of tooth color. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The outcome of this study might help clinicians estimate the performance of a new digital shade determination device.