{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028729838709677418, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010584677419354838, 'mean_word_length': 5.382636655948553, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In vivo and in vitro assessment of an intraoral dental colorimeter.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of an intraoral dental colorimeter.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
In vivo repeatability of an intraoral colorimeter was assessed by performing color measurements of 30 individuals' right maxillary central incisor. Three consecutive measurements from each individual were made. In the in vitro part of the study, 25 metal-ceramic and 25 all-ceramic specimens were prepared. Five shades of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic specimens were selected for color determination. A widely recognized in vitro colorimeter was used as the control group for the in vitro performance assessment of the in vivo colorimeter. The color differentiation capability of two colorimeters was compared with the readings obtained from ceramic specimens. DeltaE values between shade groups of ceramic specimens were calculated and statistically analyzed with Student's t-test. The repeatability of the intraoral instrument was evaluated statistically with Intraclass correlation coefficient.


RESULTS
The in vivo evaluation results showed that the overall repeatability coefficient values of L*, a*, and b* notations of the intraoral colorimeter were "excellent." The color differences (DeltaE) calculated between the colorimeters were significant only between shades A(1)-B(1) for metal-ceramic specimens (p= 0.002); however, from 5 of 10 shade couples of all-ceramic specimens, the color differences obtained from the readings of the in vivo colorimeter were significantly different from that of the in vitro colorimeter (p < 0.001). For all specimens, the differences between DeltaE values were within clinically acceptable limits (<3.5).


CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, the intraoral colorimeter exhibited successful in vivo repeatability; however, the color difference detection performance of the device varied depending on the translucency of the specimens.