ArticleHeliyon2024
Impact of different lighting conditions on the tooth-shade selection using intra-oral scanners: An
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Repeatability and Inter-Method Agreement of VITA Easyshade Advance 4.0 and Rayplicker Cobra for Tooth Shade Determination: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Multidimensional Analysis of Shade Selection Difficulty for Indirect Restorations Among Dental Students and Professionals.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy in tooth shade selection under various lighting conditions using different devices, including a color spectrophotometer (CSP) and two intra-oral scanners (IOS: IOS-1 and IOS-2). Methods: Tooth shade measurements were performed on a standardized shade guide (16 shades, A1-D4) using CSP, IOS-1 and IOS-2. These evaluations were carried out under three lighting conditions: (1) DL - device light source only, (2) RL - DL plus room light, and (3) CL - RL plus dental-chair light. Each shade was measured ten times per lighting condition with each device by a single investigator. Shade detection accuracy was defined as the percentage of matches to the known shade. Logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses ( Results: A total of 1440 measurements were conducted. Lighting conditions of increasing intensity significantly decreased the shade detection accuracy of the devices (CSP: RLvsDL, p > 0.9999, Odds Ratio (OR) = 1; CLvsDL, p = 0.0726, OR = 0.6053, IOS-1: RLvsDL, p < 0.0001, OR = 0.2862; CLvsDL, p < 0.0001, OR = 0.05239 and IOS-2: RLvsDL, p = 0.0002, OR = 0.376; CLvsDL, p < 0.0001, OR = 0.1908). CSP, IOS-1, and IOS-2 had shade detection accuracies of 43.75 %, 74.38 %, and 59.38 % respectively under DL. In RL, IOS-1 and IOS-2 dropped to 50.63 % and 40.63 %, respectively; CSP remained unchanged. Under CL, the accuracy dropped for all devices (CSP: 35.63 %, IOS-1: 20.63 %, IOS-2: 28.75 %). Additionally, the devices demonstrated higher accuracy when measuring shade A compared to shades B, C, and D. Conclusions: The findings of this in vitro study concluded that the accuracy of tooth shade detection was more reliable, particularly for individuals with shade A, when spectrophotometers and intraoral scanners were used with only their built-in light source. Further purpose-built clinical studies are required to confirm these findings in a clinical context.
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.