CERTIFICATE

IMPACT FACTOR 2021

Subject Area

  • Life Sciences / Biology
  • Architecture / Building Management
  • Asian Studies
  • Business & Management
  • Chemistry
  • Computer Science
  • Economics & Finance
  • Engineering / Acoustics
  • Environmental Science
  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Pharmaceutical Sciences
  • General Sciences
  • Materials Science
  • Mathematics
  • Medicine
  • Nanotechnology & Nanoscience
  • Nonlinear Science
  • Chaos & Dynamical Systems
  • Physics
  • Social Sciences & Humanities

Why Us? >>

  • Open Access
  • Peer Reviewed
  • Rapid Publication
  • Life time hosting
  • Free promotion service
  • Free indexing service
  • More citations
  • Search engine friendly

Students Perceptions of Prosthodontics in a problem based learning curriculum – A Survey

Author: 
Dr. Abhinav Jain, Dr. Narendra Padiyar U., Dr .Pragati Kaurani, Dr. Sudhir Meena, Dr. Devendra pal singh and Dr. Shaily Ujjwal
Subject Area: 
Health Sciences
Abstract: 

Background and objectives: Determining an accurate shade match is one of the most critical steps for cosmetic procedures. Shade selection for dental restorations is usually done visually by matching with a shade guide. Light from the shade sample enters the eye and acts on rods and cones in the retina. Impulses are then passed to optical centre of the brain, where the inferences is done. Different persons may make different execution of the same stimulus, and thus shade selection could become a subjective assessment. This in-vivo comparative study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of shade matching using conventional shade guide with and without using a light correcting device. Methods: A total of two hundred undergraduate dental students studying in Mahatma Gandhi Dental College & Hospital, Jaipur were randomly selected for the study after fulfilling exclusion and inclusion criteria. One investigator was selected for the study. The shade of the maxillary right central incisor of all the subjects was recorded visually using both Vita classical and Vita 3D Master shade guides with and without Light Correcting Device. Then the investigator took the shades of the subjects using Digital Spectrophotometer. All the values were recorded. This was done between 1100 hrs and 1400 hrs in daylight on a clear day. The conditions of tooth shade match were: natural light, a sunny day at noon time. Finally, all the data recorded were converted to mathematical coordinates according to CIE-L*C*h* values in which L* coordinate, represent colour luminosity, varying from white to black; and C* represent chroma the chromaticity of the colour , while h* represent hue. Results: Results showed that there was no significant difference found among the E values of Easy shade VL 3D and Vita 3D with Light correcting device and also between Easy Shade VC and Vita C with Light correcting device. The significant difference was found in E values of Easy Shade VC and Vita C without Light Correcting Device and in Vita C with & without Light Correcting Device. Also a significant difference was found in E values in Easy shade VL3D and Vita 3D without Light Correcting Device and also in Vita 3D with & without Light Correcting Device. Conclusion: This study showed that the shade selection done using both Vita classical and Vita 3D Master shade guides with light correcting device was more accurate than the shade selection done without Light Correcting Device when compared to the shades of the subjects using Digital Spectrophotometer. Using a Light Correcting Device along with conventional shade guide may be a simple and inexpensive option for dentists obviating the need to invest in a more expensive spectrophotometer.

PDF file: 

CALL FOR PAPERS

 

ONLINE PAYPAL PAYMENT

IJMCE RECOMMENDATION

Advantages of IJCR

  • Rapid Publishing
  • Professional publishing practices
  • Indexing in leading database
  • High level of citation
  • High Qualitiy reader base
  • High level author suport

Plagiarism Detection

IJCR is following an instant policy on rejection those received papers with plagiarism rate of more than 20%. So, All of authors and contributors must check their papers before submission to making assurance of following our anti-plagiarism policies.

 

EDITORIAL BOARD

CHUDE NKIRU PATRICIA
Nigeria
Dr. Swamy KRM
India
Dr. Abdul Hannan A.M.S
Saudi Arabia.
Luai Farhan Zghair
Iraq
Hasan Ali Abed Al-Zu’bi
Jordanian
Fredrick OJIJA
Tanzanian
Firuza M. Tursunkhodjaeva
Uzbekistan
Faraz Ahmed Farooqi
Saudi Arabia
Eric Randy Reyes Politud
Philippines
Elsadig Gasoom FadelAlla Elbashir
Sudan
Eapen, Asha Sarah
United State
Dr.Arun Kumar A
India
Dr. Zafar Iqbal
Pakistan
Dr. SHAHERA S.PATEL
India
Dr. Ruchika Khanna
India
Dr. Recep TAS
Turkey
Dr. Rasha Ali Eldeeb
Egypt
Dr. Pralhad Kanhaiyalal Rahangdale
India
DR. PATRICK D. CERNA
Philippines
Dr. Nicolas Padilla- Raygoza
Mexico
Dr. Mustafa Y. G. Younis
Libiya
Dr. Muhammad shoaib Ahmedani
Saudi Arabia
DR. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MOHMAND
United State
DR. MAHESH SHIVAJI CHAVAN
India
DR. M. ARUNA
India
Dr. Lim Gee Nee
Malaysia
Dr. Jatinder Pal Singh Chawla
India
DR. IRAM BOKHARI
Pakistan
Dr. FARHAT NAZ RAHMAN
Pakistan
Dr. Devendra kumar Gupta
India
Dr. ASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY
India
Dr. Ali Seidi
Iran
Dr. Achmad Choerudin
Indonesia
Dr Ashok Kumar Verma
India
Thi Mong Diep NGUYEN
France
Dr. Muhammad Akram
Pakistan
Dr. Imran Azad
Oman
Dr. Meenakshi Malik
India
Aseel Hadi Hamzah
Iraq
Anam Bhatti
Malaysia
Md. Amir Hossain
Bangladesh
Ahmet İPEKÇİ
Turkey
Mirzadi Gohari
Iran