Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparing methods of measurements of the distance from 0M1 related to a single tooth: 2D versus 3D within visual or electronical measurement; visual versus electronical measurements within 2D and 3D

From: New insights in the reproducibility of visual and electronic tooth color assessment for dental practice

  Visual versus electronical 2D versus 3D
within 2D within 3D within visual within electronical
Value Value Value Value
Number of paired observations 839a 840a 1680b 1679c
Mean distance (SD) d1 from 0M1 for the electronical measurement 15.8 (2.97) 13.1 (3.69)   
Mean distance (SD) d2 from 0M1 for the visual measurement 14.9 (3.28) 13.4 (2.88)   
Mean distance (SD) d1 from 0M1 for the 2D measurement    15.0 (3.25) 15.9 (2.96)
Mean distance (SD) d2 from 0M1 for the 3D measurement    13.3 (2.82) 13.3 (3.71)
Difference d2 – d1 (standard deviation) −0.89 (2.77) 0.22 (3.05) −1.64 (1.98) −2.58 (1.70)
Agreement within |d(0M1)| < 2.7, proportion (95% CI) 69.1 (65.9–72.2)** 53.3 (49.9–56.7)* 66.5 (64.2–68.8)** 47.1 (44.6–49.5)*
Agreement within |d(0M1)| < 3.7, proportion (95% CI) 86.3 (83.8–88.5)*** 86.3 (83.8–88.6)*** 80.9 (78.9–82.7)**,*** 84.0 (82.2–85.8)***
Limits of agreement −6.33 – 4.55 −5.76 – 6.19 − 5.53 – 2.25 − 5.90 – 0.75
Number of observations outside the limits of agreement total (lower; higher) 58d (33; 25) 60d (30; 30) 82e (21; 61) 49e (34; 15)
ICC(2,1) (95% CI) 0.58 (0.50–0.65)*,** 0.58 (0.53–0.62)*,** 0.69 (0.27–0.84)-,*** 0.67 (−0.06–0.88)--,***
ICC(3,1) (95% CI) 0.61 (0.56–0.65)*,** 0.58 (0.53–0.62)*,** 0.79 (0.77–0.81)**,*** 0.87 (0.86–0.88)***
  1. a V2 versus E1, V3 versus E3, V5 versus E5 acc. to the flow chart
  2. b D2 versus D3 measurements for V1 – V6 acc. to the flow chart
  3. c D2 versus D3 measurements for E1 – E6 acc. to the flow chart
  4. d expected number: 30–55
  5. e expected number: 66–102
  6. Classifications for the interpretation of agreement
  7. −− poor < 20; slight [20–40); * fair [40–60); ** good [60–80); *** very good [80–92)
  8. Classifications for the interpretation of reliability in terms of ICC
  9. −− poor < 0.2; slight [0.2–0.4); * fair [0.4–0.6); ** good [0.6–0.8); *** very good [0.8–0.92)