These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Performance of five commercially available tooth color-measuring devices.
    Author: Dozić A, Kleverlaan CJ, El-Zohairy A, Feilzer AJ, Khashayar G.
    Journal: J Prosthodont; 2007; 16(2):93-100. PubMed ID: 17362418.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Visual tooth color assessment is neither accurate nor precise due to various subjective and objective factors. As newly developed tooth color-measuring devices for dental application provide the possibility of a more objective means of color determination, their performances in vitro and in vivo must be evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and precision of five commercially available tooth color-measuring devices in standardized and in clinical environments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an in vitro study, standards (A1, A2, A3, A3.5, and A4 shade tabs of Vita Lumin) were measured five times with five electronic devices (ShadeScan, Easyshade, Ikam, IdentaColor II, and ShadeEye) by two operators. In an in vivo study, the right upper central incisors of 25 dental students were measured with the same electronic devices by a single operator. Vita shade tab codes were expressed as CIE (International Commission on Illumination) L*a*b* values and in terms of the precision and accuracy of DeltaE color differences. The Mann-Whitney statistical test was used to analyze the differences between the two operators in the in vitro study, and the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks with the post-hoc Tukey test was used to analyze the accuracy and precision of electronic devices. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the different operators in the in vitro study. The obtained precision was Easyshade > ShadeScan approximately equal Ikam > IdentaColor II > ShadeEye. The obtained accuracy was Easyshade > ShadeScan approximately equal Ikam > ShadeEye > IdentaColor II. In the in vivo study, the Easyshade and the Ikam were the most precise, and the ShadeEye and the IdentaColor II were more precise than the ShadeScan. With respect to accuracy, there was no statistical difference between the ShadeScan, Ikam, and the Easyshade. The IdentaColor II was considered inaccurate (DeltaE(a)= 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical setting, the Easyshade and Ikam systems were the most reliable. The other devices tested were more reliable in vitro than in vivo.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]