We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 3     8. May 2018
Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 3  (08.05.2018)

Page 239-247, doi:10.11607/ijp.5563, PubMed:29723318


Do Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Color-Vision Deficiencies Influence Shade-Matching Ability?
Pohlen, Boštjan / Hawlina, Marko / Pompe, Manca Tekavčič / Kopač, Igor
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of color-vision deficiencies and type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) on visual shade-matching ability.
Materials and Methods: Four groups of participants were investigated: a control group (n = 68); a group with protanomalia (n = 10); a group with deuteranomalia (n = 19); and a group with type 1 DM (n = 13). Color vision was evaluated monocularly using the Ishihara test, Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue (FM100H) test, Hardy Rand Rittler (HRR) test, and with an HMC Anomaloskop MR (Rayleigh and Moreland tests). The final exam was on a Toothguide Training Box (TTB) and consisted of 15 lightness-chroma-hue tasks. The color difference (ΔE*ab) and the shade-matching score (ΣΔE*ab) were computed, and the correct lightness (L*), chroma (C*), and hue (h*) selections were counted. The means and standard deviations for the ΣΔE*ab, ΔE*ab, L*, C*, h*, Ishihara, HRR, FM100H, and Rayleigh and Moreland tests were calculated. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni test were used for statistical analyses and a comparison of means (α = .05). The data analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 for Windows (IBM).
Results: The control group selected the shade tab on the TTB significantly better (ΣΔE*ab = 31.57 ± 13.50) than the group with protanomalia (ΣΔE*ab = 55.50 ± 12.36; P < .0001) and the group with deuteranomalia (ΣΔE*ab = 59.18 ± 16.35; P < .0001), but not significantly better than the group with type 1 DM (ΣΔE*ab = 39.43 ± 11.46; P = .368). The group with type 1 DM selected the shade tab on the TTB significantly better than the group with protanomalia (P = .038) and the group with deuteranomalia (P < .0001).
Conclusion: Participants with color-vision deficiencies are less accurate at shade matching than the control group and the group with type 1 DM. Int