Abstract
Statement of problem
Digital scans have increasingly become an alternative to conventional impressions.
Although previous studies have analyzed the accuracy of the available intraoral scanners
(IOSs), the effect of the light scanning conditions on the accuracy of those IOS systems
remains unclear.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the impact of lighting conditions
on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different IOSs.
Material and methods
A typodont was digitized by using an extraoral scanner (L2i; Imetric) to obtain a
reference standard tessellation language (STL) file. Three IOSs were evaluated—iTero
Element, CEREC Omnicam, and TRIOS 3—with 4 lighting conditions—chair light 10 000
lux, room light 1003 lux, natural light 500 lux, and no light 0 lux. Ten digital scans
per group were recorded. The STL file was used as a reference to measure the discrepancy
between the digitized typodont and digital scans by using the MeshLab software program.
The Kruskal-Wallis, 1-way ANOVA, and pairwise comparison were used to analyze the
data.
Results
Significant differences for trueness and precision mean values were observed across
different IOSs tested with the same lighting conditions and across different lighting
conditions for a given IOS. In all groups, precision mean values were higher than
their trueness values, indicating low relative precision.
Conclusions
Ambient lighting conditions influenced the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the
IOSs tested. The recommended lighting conditions depend on the IOS selected. For iTero
Element, chair and room light conditions resulted in better accuracy mean values.
For CEREC Omnicam, zero light resulted in better accuracy, and for TRIOS 3, room light
resulted in better accuracy.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Toward a new symbolism in the fabrication of prosthetic design.Cah Prothese. 1985; 13: 65-71
- Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview.Int J Comput Dent. 2015; 18: 101-129
- Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence.Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38: 422-428
- Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 184-190
- Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of current literature.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 149-151
- Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41
- Impressions are changing: Deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling.J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140: 1301-1304
- Intra-oral scanners: a new eye in dentistry.Austin J Orthopade Rheumatol. 2015; 2: 3-5
- Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation.J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60: 72-84
- Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws.J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144: 914-920
- Precision of intraoral digital impressions with iTero and extraoral digitalization with iTero and a model scanner.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144: 471-478
- Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 836-845
- Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review.Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015; 18: 65-76
- An introduction to dental digitizers in dentistry. A systematic review.J Chem Pharm Res. 2015; 7: 10-20
- Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review.Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38: 429-434
- Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 328-335
- The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 124-131
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 intraoral scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparison.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
- Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 0: 101-120
- Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions.J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10: e361-e366
- Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors.Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26: 101-121
- Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses.J Oral Sci. 2018; 60: 1-7
- Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.Dent Mater J. 2018; 37: 628-633
- Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 107-113
- Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method.J Dent. 2018; 69: 110-118
- Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient.Evid Based Dent. 2017; 18: 24-25
- Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners.Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18: 1687-1694
- Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems.J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30: 113-118
- Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner.J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 324-329
- Recent advances in dental optics - part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry.Opt Lasers Eng. 2014; 54: 187-196
- Intraoral scanners technologies: A review to make a successful impression.J Healthc Eng. 2017; 2017: 8427595
- Evaluating causes of error in landmark-based data collection using scanners.PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0187452
- Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 221-230
- Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
- Effect of imaging powder and CAD/CAM stone types on the marginal gap of zirconia crowns.J Am Dent Assoc. 2015; 146: 111-120
- A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by two intraoral scanners: effects on tooth irregularities and scanning direction.Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46: 3-12
- Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS pod scanner.Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-349
- Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form.J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8: 354-362
- Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 392-399
- Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 93-101
- ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measuring methods and results. Part-I: General principles and definitions.International Organization for Standardization, Berlin1994 (Available at:)
- Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
- The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only ANOVA procedures.in: Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '11. ACM Press, New York, NY2011: 143
- Study of ambient light influence for three dimensional scanners based on structured light.Opt Eng. 2007; 46: 030502
- Investigating laser scanner accuracy.in: Proceedings of XIXth CIPA WG 6, International Symposium. i3mainz, Institute for Spatial Information and Surveying Technology, Mainz, Germany2004: 696-702
- Correlation between incident angle, measurement distance, object colour and the number of acquired points at CNC laser scanning.J Mech Eng. 2012; 58: 23-28
- Influence of roughness on surface scanning by means of a laser stripe system.Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2009; 43: 1157-1166
- Dental operating lights and illumination of the dental surgery.Int Dent J. 1979; 29: 148-163
- European Lightening Standard EN12464-1. Light and lighting - Lighting of work places - Part 1: Indoor work places. Berlin, Germany, 2011: 1-29
- ISO 9680. Dentistry operating lights.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva2014 (Available at:)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 18, 2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
