A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Accuracy and repeatability of different intraoral scanners on shade determination. | LitMetric

Accuracy and repeatability of different intraoral scanners on shade determination.

J Esthet Restor Dent

Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil.

Published: September 2021


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of different intraoral scanners on shade determination.

Materials And Methods: Ten different shades of Vita Mark II blocks were used. A disc-shape specimen (10 mm in diameter and 1 mm thick) per ceramic block was fabricated. Ten color measurements per specimen were performed by each instrument (Vita Easyshade V [control], 3shape Trios, Cerec Omnicam, Cerec Primescan) and recorded in Vita Classic color system. The number of correct shade match per instrument for each shade was recorded. Instrumental accuracy was compared using Cochran Q test and repeatability was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha.

Results: There was a significant difference in the instrumental accuracy for shade determination (p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the Easyshade V (78%) and the 3Shape Trios (66%) (p > 0.05), with the latter being similar to the other scanners Primescan(63%) and Omnicam (57%) (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found (p > 0.05) when different shades were evaluated by the same instrument. Similar repeatability was found for the different devices, ranging from 44.3% for Easyshade to 51.9% for Omnicam.

Conclusion: The evaluated instruments showed less than expected repeatability and accuracy on measuring different dental shades. Therefore, caution should be exercised when using instrumental shade determination, which should be accompanied by experienced human visual assessment.

Clinical Significance: The outcome of this study might help clinicians evaluate the performance of intraoral scanners as a shade matching tool.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12687DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

intraoral scanners
12
scanners shade
12
shade determination
12
accuracy repeatability
8
repeatability intraoral
8
instrumental accuracy
8
shade
7
accuracy
5
scanners
4
determination objective
4

Similar Publications