ArticleDentistry journal2024
Dental Color-Matching Ability: Comparison between Visual Determination and Technology.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Art therapy-oriented space design for pediatric dental clinics: a Kano-AHP-FCE framework.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Hydrogen Peroxide-Free Color Correctors for Tooth Whitening in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review of In Vitro and Clinical Evidence.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Assessing Discrimination and Acceptance for Lightness and Chroma During Shade Selection: A Comparison of Dental and Non-Dental Professionals.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of the correct color is of paramount importance in esthetic dentistry; however, there is still no consensus on the best technique to determine it. The aim of the present study is to compare the accuracy of a recently introduced colorimeter in shade matching with human vision. In addition, possible variables affecting color-matching by human eye have been analysed.
methods18 disc-shaped composite samples with identical size and shape were produced from a composite flow system (Enamel plus HriHF, Micerium): Nine were considered control samples (UD 0-UD 6), and nine were test samples with identical flow composite shade to the control ones. Parallelly, 70 individuals (dental students and dental field professionals) were individually instructed to sit in a dark room illuminated with D55 light and to perform visual shade matching between control and test discs. An error matrix containing ΔE
resultsThe colorimeter achieved a 100% perfect matching, while individuals only achieved a 78%. A higher occurrence of mismatches was noted for intermediate composite shades without a statistically significant difference. No statistically significant differences were reported for age, sex, and experience. A statistically significant difference was present among the Optishade match and the visual determination.
conclusionsThe instrumental shade-matching evaluation proved to be significantly more reliable than the human visual system. Further research is needed to determine whether the same outcomes are achieved in a clinical setting directly on patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.