Abstract
Statement of problem
Digital scans should be able to accurately reproduce the different complex geometries
of the patient's mouth. Mesh quality of the digitized mouth is an important factor
that influences the capabilities of the geometry reproduction of an intraoral scanner
(IOS). However, the mesh quality capabilities of IOSs and the relationship with different
ambient light scanning conditions are unclear.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the impact of various light conditions
on the mesh quality of different IOSs.
Material and methods
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 made of a mandibular typodont.
The mesh quality of digital scans was analyzed by using the iso2mesh MATLAB package.
Two-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis 1-way ANOVA statistical tests were used to analyze
the data (á=.05).
Results
Significant differences in mesh quality values were found among the different IOSs
under the same lighting conditions and among the different lighting conditions using
the same IOS. TRIOS 3 showed the highest consistency and mesh quality mean values
across all scanning lighting conditions tested. CEREC Omnicam had the lowest mean
mesh quality values across all scanning lighting conditions. iTero Element displayed
some consistency in the mesh quality values depending on the scanning lighting conditions:
chair light and room light conditions presented good consistency in mesh quality,
indicating better mesh quality, and natural light and no light conditions displayed
differing consistency in mesh quality values. Nevertheless, no light condition led
to the minimal mean mesh quality across all IOS groups.
Conclusions
Differences in the mesh quality between different IOSs should be expected. The photographic scanning
techniques evaluated presented higher mesh quality mean values than the video-based
scanning technology tested. Moreover, changes in lighting condition significantly
affect mesh quality. TRIOS 3 showed the highest consistency in terms of the mean mesh
quality, indicating better photographic system in comparison with iTero Element.
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.Les Cahiers de Prothèse. 1985; 13: 65-71
- Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling.J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140: 1301-1304
- A report on a diagnostic digital workflow for esthetic dental rehabilitation using additive manufacturing technologies.Int J Esthet Dent. 2018; 13: 184-196
- Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws.J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144: 914-920
- 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
- Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics. A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 184-190
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors.Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26: 101-121
- 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
- Intraoral scanners technologies: a review to make a successful impression.J Healthc Eng. 2017; : 1-9
- Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS pod scanner.Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-349
- Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner.J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 324-329
- Influence of roughness on surface scanning by means of a laser stripe system.Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2009; 43: 1157-1166
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Recent advances in dental optics - part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry.Opt Lasers Eng. 2014; 54: 187-196
- Effects on LiDAR data reduction and breaklines on the accuracy of digital elevation model.Surv Rev. 2011; 43: 614-628
- A method for registration of 3-D shapes.IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1992; 14: 239-256
- Method to evaluate the noise of 3D intra-oral scanner.PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0182206
- VCLab’s tools for 3D range data processing.Vast. 2003; 2003: 13-22
- Relationship between tetrahedron shape measures.BIT. 1994; 34: 268-287
- Fast and high-quality tetrahedral mesh generation from neuroanatomical scans.(Available at:)
- 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. 2011: 1-29
- ISO 9680. Dentistry Operating Lights, Berlin, Germany2014: 1-27
- Interactive tooth partition of dental mesh base on tooth-target harmonic field.Comput Biol Med. 2015; 56: 132-144
- Automatic segmentation of dental mesh using a transverse plane.Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018; 2018: 4122-4125
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 20, 2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
