不同数码摄影设备色彩差异的比较评价,以规范牙科摄影色彩评价

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.7860/jcdr/2023/58797.17559
Jaimini Jigar Patel, N. Shah, R. Shah, Meghna Kothari, Priya Porwal, Renu Batra
{"title":"不同数码摄影设备色彩差异的比较评价,以规范牙科摄影色彩评价","authors":"Jaimini Jigar Patel, N. Shah, R. Shah, Meghna Kothari, Priya Porwal, Renu Batra","doi":"10.7860/jcdr/2023/58797.17559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Photography has always been thought to be an important part of dentistry. Since the introduction of digital technology; imaging has become simpler and more accessible. Colour matching is critical for the success of restorative and prosthetic dental treatments, also communication with the dental laboratory is still subjective, and further research is needed on this aspect. Aim: To compare the colour difference of digital photography equipment to standardise colour assessment in dental photography. Materials and Methods: A single blind clinical study was conducted after Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) registration and informed consent, and a total of 22 participants were enrolled in accordance with the selection criteria. A spectrophotometer was used to determine the CIELAB ( Colour space defined by International Commission on Illumination) values of the right central incisor for each participant. They were then photographed with five different photography equipment along with a grey reference card. Group A: Canon 1300D Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) with 100 mm lens and pop-up flash (N=22). Group B: Canon 1300D DSLR+100 mm lens+70 GSM white tissue paper (N=22). Group C: Canon 1300D DSLR+ 100 mm lens with ring flash (N=22). Group D: Canon 1300D DSLR+100 mm lens+ring flash+diffuser (N=22). Group E: Iphone 11 (N=22). CIELAB values were obtained for all the groups using adobe Photoshop software after white balancing. Delta E was calculated by comparing CIELAB values of each group with the spectrophotometer values. The data was tabulated and analysed with one way ANOVA and Post-hoc test using IBM SPSS 20 software with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Mean value of Delta E was least in group D (DSLR+ ring flash with diffuser) (5.033) followed by group B (DSLR+ pop up flash with white tissue paper) (6.57), group A (DSLR+pop-up flash) (10.70), group E (Iphone11) (10.74) and highest in group C (DSLR+ ring flash) (11.32). Conclusion: Group D (DSLR+ ring flash with diffuser) was determined to be closest to the standard spectrophotometric values for colour assessment in dental photography","PeriodicalId":15483,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Colour Difference using Different Digital Photography Equipment to Standardise Colour Assessment in Dental Photography\",\"authors\":\"Jaimini Jigar Patel, N. Shah, R. Shah, Meghna Kothari, Priya Porwal, Renu Batra\",\"doi\":\"10.7860/jcdr/2023/58797.17559\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Photography has always been thought to be an important part of dentistry. Since the introduction of digital technology; imaging has become simpler and more accessible. Colour matching is critical for the success of restorative and prosthetic dental treatments, also communication with the dental laboratory is still subjective, and further research is needed on this aspect. Aim: To compare the colour difference of digital photography equipment to standardise colour assessment in dental photography. Materials and Methods: A single blind clinical study was conducted after Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) registration and informed consent, and a total of 22 participants were enrolled in accordance with the selection criteria. A spectrophotometer was used to determine the CIELAB ( Colour space defined by International Commission on Illumination) values of the right central incisor for each participant. They were then photographed with five different photography equipment along with a grey reference card. Group A: Canon 1300D Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) with 100 mm lens and pop-up flash (N=22). Group B: Canon 1300D DSLR+100 mm lens+70 GSM white tissue paper (N=22). Group C: Canon 1300D DSLR+ 100 mm lens with ring flash (N=22). Group D: Canon 1300D DSLR+100 mm lens+ring flash+diffuser (N=22). Group E: Iphone 11 (N=22). CIELAB values were obtained for all the groups using adobe Photoshop software after white balancing. Delta E was calculated by comparing CIELAB values of each group with the spectrophotometer values. The data was tabulated and analysed with one way ANOVA and Post-hoc test using IBM SPSS 20 software with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Mean value of Delta E was least in group D (DSLR+ ring flash with diffuser) (5.033) followed by group B (DSLR+ pop up flash with white tissue paper) (6.57), group A (DSLR+pop-up flash) (10.70), group E (Iphone11) (10.74) and highest in group C (DSLR+ ring flash) (11.32). Conclusion: Group D (DSLR+ ring flash with diffuser) was determined to be closest to the standard spectrophotometric values for colour assessment in dental photography\",\"PeriodicalId\":15483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2023/58797.17559\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2023/58797.17559","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摄影一直被认为是牙科的重要组成部分。自从引入数字技术以来;成像变得更简单,更容易获取。颜色匹配是修复和修复牙齿治疗成功的关键,与牙科实验室的沟通仍然是主观的,这方面需要进一步的研究。目的:比较数码摄影设备的色差,以规范牙科摄影的色彩评价。材料与方法:经印度临床试验注册中心(CTRI)注册并知情同意后进行单盲临床研究,按照入选标准共入组22例受试者。使用分光光度计确定每个参与者右侧中切牙的CIELAB(国际照明委员会定义的色彩空间)值。然后用五种不同的摄影设备和一张灰色的参考卡给他们拍照。A组:佳能1300D数码单反相机(DSLR), 100mm镜头和弹出式闪光灯(N=22)。B组:佳能1300D单反+ 100mm镜头+70 GSM白色纸巾(N=22)。C组:佳能1300D数码单反+ 100mm环闪光镜头(N=22)。D组:佳能1300D单反+ 100mm镜头+环形闪光灯+扩散器(N=22)。E组:Iphone 11 (N=22)。白平衡后使用adobe Photoshop软件获取各组的CIELAB值。通过比较各组CIELAB值与分光光度计值计算δ E。将数据制成表格,采用单因素方差分析和事后检验,采用IBM SPSS 20软件进行分析,p<0.05认为有统计学意义。结果:D组(数码单反+带扩光圈闪光)E值平均值最小(5.033),其次是B组(数码单反+带白色薄纸的弹出闪光)(6.57)、A组(数码单反+弹出闪光)(10.70)、E组(Iphone11) (10.74), C组(数码单反+环形闪光)最高(11.32)。结论:D组(DSLR+带扩散器的环形闪光灯)最接近标准分光光度值用于牙科摄影的颜色评估
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 Evaluation of Colour Difference using Different Digital Photography Equipment to Standardise Colour Assessment in Dental Photography
Introduction: Photography has always been thought to be an important part of dentistry. Since the introduction of digital technology; imaging has become simpler and more accessible. Colour matching is critical for the success of restorative and prosthetic dental treatments, also communication with the dental laboratory is still subjective, and further research is needed on this aspect. Aim: To compare the colour difference of digital photography equipment to standardise colour assessment in dental photography. Materials and Methods: A single blind clinical study was conducted after Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) registration and informed consent, and a total of 22 participants were enrolled in accordance with the selection criteria. A spectrophotometer was used to determine the CIELAB ( Colour space defined by International Commission on Illumination) values of the right central incisor for each participant. They were then photographed with five different photography equipment along with a grey reference card. Group A: Canon 1300D Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) with 100 mm lens and pop-up flash (N=22). Group B: Canon 1300D DSLR+100 mm lens+70 GSM white tissue paper (N=22). Group C: Canon 1300D DSLR+ 100 mm lens with ring flash (N=22). Group D: Canon 1300D DSLR+100 mm lens+ring flash+diffuser (N=22). Group E: Iphone 11 (N=22). CIELAB values were obtained for all the groups using adobe Photoshop software after white balancing. Delta E was calculated by comparing CIELAB values of each group with the spectrophotometer values. The data was tabulated and analysed with one way ANOVA and Post-hoc test using IBM SPSS 20 software with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Mean value of Delta E was least in group D (DSLR+ ring flash with diffuser) (5.033) followed by group B (DSLR+ pop up flash with white tissue paper) (6.57), group A (DSLR+pop-up flash) (10.70), group E (Iphone11) (10.74) and highest in group C (DSLR+ ring flash) (11.32). Conclusion: Group D (DSLR+ ring flash with diffuser) was determined to be closest to the standard spectrophotometric values for colour assessment in dental photography
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
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
761
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Specialties Covered: Anaesthesia, Anatomy, Animal Research, Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Cardiology, Community, Dermatology, Dentistry, Education, Emergency Medicine, Endocrinology, Ethics, Ear Nose and Throat, Forensic, Gastroenterology, Genetics, Haematology, Health Management and Policy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Health Management and Policy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Nephrology / Renal, Neurology and Neuro-Surgery, Nutrition, Nursing/Midwifery, Oncology, Orthopaedics, Ophthalmology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Paediatrics and Neonatology Pharmacology, Physiology, Pathology, Plastic Surgery, Psychiatry/Mental Health, Rehabilitation / Physiotherapy, Radiology, Statistics, Surgery, Speech and Hearing (Audiology)
期刊最新文献
Correction. Correction. Correction. Correction. Mental Health of Foreign Medical Graduates in Tamil Nadu, India: A Mixed-methods Study
×
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