A comparison between visual, intraoral scanner, and spectrophotometer shade matching: A clinical study
Abstract
Statement of problem
Visual
shade matching is subjective and a cause of concern for clinicians.
Different measurement devices have been developed to assist in tooth
color selection and to achieve better esthetic results. However,
consensus is lacking as to which method of tooth shade selection
provides more predictable results.
Purpose
The
purpose of this clinical study was to compare the reliability of
different visual and instrumental methods for dental shade matching.
Material and methods
Visual
shade matching was performed by 3 experienced clinicians using 2
different shade guides (VITA Classical A1-D4 and VITA Toothguide
3D-MASTER with 29 tabs; VITA Zahnfabrik) with and without the aid of a
light-correcting device (Smile Lite; Smile Line). An intraoral scanner
(TRIOS; 3Shape A/S) and a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade Advance 4.0;
VITA Zahnfabrik) were also used for color shade matching. The
instrumental methods were repeated 3 times to determine repeatability.
Shade-matching sessions for each method were performed under controlled
lighting on the middle third of the maxillary right central incisor of
28 participants. The Fleiss' kappa statistical test was used to assess
the reliability of each method. The weighted kappa statistical test was
used to assess the agreement between the shades matched by different
methods (α=.05).
Results
Instrumental
methods were more accurate than visual methods. The best performance
was found for the intraoral scanner configured for the 3D-MASTER scale
(Fleiss' kappa value of .874) and for the spectrophotometer configured
for the VITA Classical scale (Fleiss' kappa value of .805). The best
visual shade-matching method was the VITA Classical scale associated
with the light-correcting device (Fleiss' kappa value of .322). The
Classical scale without the light-correcting device showed the poorest
reliability (Fleiss' kappa value of .177) (P<.05).
Conclusions
Instrumental methods for color shade matching were more reliable than the visual methods tested.
Comments