智能手机色度计应用与分光光度法测量颌面部假体制作中前额皮肤颜色的比较分析。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1111/jopr.13970
Somayeh Niakan, Mahdi Safi, Shima Younespour, Shayan Khoshtarkib
{"title":"智能手机色度计应用与分光光度法测量颌面部假体制作中前额皮肤颜色的比较分析。","authors":"Somayeh Niakan, Mahdi Safi, Shima Younespour, Shayan Khoshtarkib","doi":"10.1111/jopr.13970","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of two smartphone colorimeter apps, Color Grab, and Color Picker, in measuring forehead skin color and to compare their readings with those from a spectrophotometer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty participants (26 males, 24 females; median age 23 years, range 21-45) were included. Using a smartphone camera, images of forehead skin were captured, and CIELAB color values were reported by both apps. Measurements from a reference spectrophotometer (MiniScan EZ 4500L, 45°/0° geometry) served as the gold standard. Trueness and precision were assessed using CIELAB and CIEDE2000 formulas. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney tests, with significance at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both apps showed comparable accuracy in capturing skin color, with absolute trueness (ΔE<sub>Abs</sub>) for Color Grab at 7.59 (CIEDE2000) and Color Picker at 7.65. Relative trueness (ΔE<sub>Rel</sub>) was 3.79 for Color Grab and 3.70 for Color Picker. Precision (MCDM) demonstrated significant differences between the apps: Color Grab at 1.34 (CIEDE2000) compared to Color Picker at 0.96 (p < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While smartphone apps may not match the accuracy of spectrophotometers, they offer valuable alternatives for color matching in maxillofacial prostheses. Future studies should focus on minimizing systematic errors related to environmental factors and camera settings to enhance measurement accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of smartphone colorimeter apps and spectrophotometry for measuring forehead skin color in maxillofacial prosthesis fabrication.\",\"authors\":\"Somayeh Niakan, Mahdi Safi, Shima Younespour, Shayan Khoshtarkib\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jopr.13970\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of two smartphone colorimeter apps, Color Grab, and Color Picker, in measuring forehead skin color and to compare their readings with those from a spectrophotometer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty participants (26 males, 24 females; median age 23 years, range 21-45) were included. Using a smartphone camera, images of forehead skin were captured, and CIELAB color values were reported by both apps. Measurements from a reference spectrophotometer (MiniScan EZ 4500L, 45°/0° geometry) served as the gold standard. Trueness and precision were assessed using CIELAB and CIEDE2000 formulas. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney tests, with significance at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both apps showed comparable accuracy in capturing skin color, with absolute trueness (ΔE<sub>Abs</sub>) for Color Grab at 7.59 (CIEDE2000) and Color Picker at 7.65. Relative trueness (ΔE<sub>Rel</sub>) was 3.79 for Color Grab and 3.70 for Color Picker. Precision (MCDM) demonstrated significant differences between the apps: Color Grab at 1.34 (CIEDE2000) compared to Color Picker at 0.96 (p < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While smartphone apps may not match the accuracy of spectrophotometers, they offer valuable alternatives for color matching in maxillofacial prostheses. Future studies should focus on minimizing systematic errors related to environmental factors and camera settings to enhance measurement accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13970\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13970","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估两款智能手机色度计应用程序Color Grab和Color Picker测量额头皮肤颜色的准确性和精密度,并将其读数与分光光度计的读数进行比较。材料与方法:50例受试者(男26例,女24例;中位年龄23岁(21-45岁)。研究人员使用智能手机摄像头捕捉前额皮肤的图像,并通过两个应用程序报告CIELAB颜色值。测量从参考分光光度计(MiniScan EZ 4500L, 45°/0°几何)作为金标准。采用CIELAB和CIEDE2000公式评估真度和精密度。统计分析包括单因素方差分析和曼-惠特尼检验,显著性为p。结果:两个应用程序在捕捉肤色方面显示出相当的准确性,颜色抓取的绝对真实度(ΔEAbs)为7.59 (CIEDE2000)和颜色拾取器为7.65。Color Grab的相对真实度(ΔERel)为3.79,Color Picker为3.70。精度(MCDM)显示了应用程序之间的显著差异:Color Grab为1.34 (CIEDE2000),而Color Picker为0.96 (p)。结论:虽然智能手机应用程序可能无法与分光光度计的精度相匹配,但它们为颌面假体的颜色匹配提供了有价值的替代方案。未来的研究应侧重于减少与环境因素和相机设置相关的系统误差,以提高测量精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative analysis of smartphone colorimeter apps and spectrophotometry for measuring forehead skin color in maxillofacial prosthesis fabrication.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of two smartphone colorimeter apps, Color Grab, and Color Picker, in measuring forehead skin color and to compare their readings with those from a spectrophotometer.

Materials and methods: Fifty participants (26 males, 24 females; median age 23 years, range 21-45) were included. Using a smartphone camera, images of forehead skin were captured, and CIELAB color values were reported by both apps. Measurements from a reference spectrophotometer (MiniScan EZ 4500L, 45°/0° geometry) served as the gold standard. Trueness and precision were assessed using CIELAB and CIEDE2000 formulas. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney tests, with significance at p < 0.05.

Results: Both apps showed comparable accuracy in capturing skin color, with absolute trueness (ΔEAbs) for Color Grab at 7.59 (CIEDE2000) and Color Picker at 7.65. Relative trueness (ΔERel) was 3.79 for Color Grab and 3.70 for Color Picker. Precision (MCDM) demonstrated significant differences between the apps: Color Grab at 1.34 (CIEDE2000) compared to Color Picker at 0.96 (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: While smartphone apps may not match the accuracy of spectrophotometers, they offer valuable alternatives for color matching in maxillofacial prostheses. Future studies should focus on minimizing systematic errors related to environmental factors and camera settings to enhance measurement accuracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
171
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Prosthodontics promotes the advanced study and practice of prosthodontics, implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry. It is the official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, the American Dental Association-recognized voice of the Specialty of Prosthodontics. The journal publishes evidence-based original scientific articles presenting information that is relevant and useful to prosthodontists. Additionally, it publishes reports of innovative techniques, new instructional methodologies, and instructive clinical reports with an interdisciplinary flair. The journal is particularly focused on promoting the study and use of cutting-edge technology and positioning prosthodontists as the early-adopters of new technology in the dental community.
期刊最新文献
Implant stability quotient and osteogenic process in dental implant sites prepared using piezoelectric technique: A study in minipigs. Angulated titanium bases screw channel abutments for single implant restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Effect of cleft palate type and manufacturing method on feeding plate adaptation: A volumetric micro-computed tomography analysis. Shear bond strength of vat photopolymerization additive-manufactured zirconia to veneering ceramic. Beyond the mouth: An overview of obstructive sleep apnea in adults for dentists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1