Visual and instrumental coverage error of two dental shade guides: an in vivo study
Metadatos
Afficher la notice complèteAuteur
Ruiz López, Javier; Pérez Gómez, María Del Mar; Lucena Martín, Cristina; Pulgar Encinas, Rosa María; López Toruño, Ana; Tejada Casado, María de la Nativida; Ghinea, Razvan IonutEditorial
Springer
Materia
Coverage error Shade guides Color differences Shade matching
Date
2022-05-31Referencia bibliográfica
Ruiz-López, J... [et al.]. Visual and instrumental coverage error of two dental shade guides: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Invest (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04556-0]
Patrocinador
Universidad de Granada / CBUA; Junta de Andalucia P20-00200 A.TEP.280.UGR18; Spanish Government PGC2018101,904-A-I00Résumé
Objectives This study aims to evaluate in vivo the color agreement between natural teeth and dental shade guides by means
of visual and instrumental coverage error ( CE ) index.
Materials and methods The color of the middle third of 735 incisors was visually determined by two evaluators using the
Vita Classical (VC) and Vita 3D Master (V3DM) shade guides. The color match between the natural tooth and the shade tab
was rated as poor (P), good (G), or optimum (O) by each observer. CIE color coordinates of the target teeth and shade tabs
of VC and V3DM were instrumentally measured using a clinical spectrophotometer. Visual ( CE
V ) and instrumental ( CE
I )
coverage error indexes were computed using CIELAB and CIEDE2000 metrics for both shade guides. For CE
V calculation,
only the concordant inter-observer determination on tooth shade rated as O–O or O–G was used. The results were evaluated
using perceptibility (PT, ΔE∗
ab = 1.2, ΔE
00 = 0.8) and acceptability (AT, ΔE∗
ab = 2.7, ΔE
00 = 1.8) color thresholds for dentistry.
Results VC and V3DM exhibited CE
I (2.5, 3.2, and 3.2, 2.7 CIELAB units; 1.9, 2.3, and 2.8, 2.4 CIEDE2000 units, respectively,
for O–O and O–G match) and CE
V (4.7, 4.8, and 4.1, 4.6 CIELAB units; 3.3, 3.4, and 3.4, 3.6 CIEDE2000 units,
respectively, for O–O and O–G match) values greater than 50:50% AT for both color difference formulas. CE
I contributes
more than 50% (53.2–82.4% range) to the CE
V value. This contribution depends on the shade guide used and the quality of
the visual rating.
Conclusions The evaluated shade guides exhibited visual coverage errors above acceptability thresholds, largely due to the
contribution of the instrumental coverage error to the visual coverage error.
Clinical relevance It necessary to further improve commercially available dental shade guides to facilitate achievement of
satisfactory esthetics results in clinical practice.