ReviewDentistry journal2026
A Multidimensional Analysis of Shade Selection Difficulty for Indirect Restorations Among Dental Students and Professionals.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Color Mapping of Teeth Restored Using Dental Adhesives Loaded with Magnetic Nanoparticles.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advances in dental materials and digital color registration systems, esthetic matching remains a clinical challenge for both dental students and experienced professionals. A comprehensive narrative review was conducted through bibliographic searches in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases from January 2015 to January 2026. The evidence was synthesized using a four-dimensional analytical framework encompassing technological, cognitive-psychological, educational, and clinical-contextual factors. Quantitative synthesis revealed substantial variability in shade matching success rates, with intraoral scanners demonstrating pass rates ranging from 31.3% to 78.2% across devices, while spectrophotometers achieved superior repeatability (ICC > 0.9) but faced interpretive barriers. Cognitive load theory explains the performance deterioration, with novices being particularly susceptible to retinal fatigue and metamerism under non-standardized lighting conditions. The proposed paradigm shift involves redefining shade selection from a purely technical task to a cognitive skill that requires deliberate perceptual calibration, structured educational protocols, and hybrid digital visual workflows. To improve esthetic predictability, educational programs need to integrate longitudinal training in color science with objective feedback mechanisms. Clinical workflows should adopt hybrid calibration-centric protocols that position technology as a verification tool, rather than a replacement for clinical judgment. Understanding the multidimensional nature of shade matching difficulty enables the development of evidence-based educational protocols and clinical workflows, ultimately improving esthetic outcomes.
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.