Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The aim of this study was to compare the agreement rate (%) and color difference (ΔE*ab) of three dental color-measuring devices, with the visual shade identification. The tooth color were determined by two operators, which were advised to select a VITA classic shade tab in each other's agreement. The Shadepilot (SP), CrystalEye (CE) and ShadeVision (SV) were used to measure tooth color. Statistically analyses include agreement rate (%), color difference (ΔE*ab), McNemar test (p=0.05), Student's t-test (p=0.05) and Bland Altman scatterplots. The SP had an agreement of 56.3% with the visual shade determination, the CE 49.0% and SV 51.3%. ΔE*ab of the visually and instrumentally selected shade tabs and natural teeth were frequently above the threshold for acceptability. Comparing both methods, for SP ΔE*ab values differ in a range of clinical acceptability.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2015-006 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!