International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Accuracy and Efficiency of Two Commercially Available Intraoral Scanners Under Different Room Lighting Conditions: A Crossover Clinical Trial

Subhabrata Maiti, Senthamil Sindhu, Deepak Nallaswamy

Keywords : Accuracy, Intraoral scanners, Light conditions, Precision, Trueness

Citation Information : Maiti S, Sindhu S, Nallaswamy D. Accuracy and Efficiency of Two Commercially Available Intraoral Scanners Under Different Room Lighting Conditions: A Crossover Clinical Trial. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023; 13 (4):201-209.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1426

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of the two intraoral scanners (IOSs) under the influence of three different room light conditions. Materials and methods: A crossover clinical trial was conducted with a total of 72 experimental scan samples obtained from six subjects under a three-light source (white light, chair light, and no light). Full arch scans were made in the maxillary and mandibular arches with Trios and Medit IOSs. The cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan of the corresponding subject was made as the reference scan. The results were analyzed with the three-dimensional (3D) analyzing software Geomagic. The accuracy is measured in terms of precision trueness and efficiency in terms of the number of images and time taken by the IOSs under the influence of three different room light conditions. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-test were carried out to find the significance of the results. Result: A significant difference in trueness was observed between the two IOSs under the influence of light conditions (p < 0.05). Lesser deviations were observed in the Medit group with the least deviations found in chair light (0.23 ± 0.03) and white light (0.23 ± 0.07). The accuracy of the IOSs when compared within the light conditions (precision) showed no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05), however, least deviations were observed for Medit (0.23 ± 0.07) and Trios (0.36 ± 0.08) in chair light condition in mandibular arch and Medit (0.38 ± 0.07) and Trios (0.55 ± 0.14) in no light condition in the maxillary arch. Conclusion: The difference between the IOSs was present under different light sources in terms of trueness and efficacy but not in precision.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2011;55(3):559–570. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011
  2. Marques S, Ribeiro P, Falcão C, et al. Digital impressions in implant dentistry: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18(3):1020. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18031020
  3. Tan MY, Xin Yee SH, Wong KM, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of Interimplant distance in an edentulous arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34(2): 366–380. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6855
  4. Papaspyridakos P, De Souza A, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs conventional full-arch implant impressions: a retrospective analysis of 36 edentulous jaws. J Prosthodont 2023;32(4):325–330. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13536
  5. Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, et al. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont 2020;29(4):281–286. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13162
  6. Abdeen L, Chen YW, Kostagianni A, et al. Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D-printed casts versus stone casts: a comparative study in the anterior maxilla. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022;34(8):1238–1246. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12954
  7. Bhambhani R, Bhattacharya J, Sen SK. Digitization and its futuristic approach in prosthodontics. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13(3):165–174. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0181-2
  8. Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Kamposiora P, et al. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2021;21(1):37. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2
  9. Gupta S, Gupta H, Tandan A. Technical complications of implant-causes and management: a comprehensive review. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2015;6(1):3–8. DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.168233
  10. Aswani K, Wankhade S, Khalikar A, et al. Accuracy of an intraoral digital impression: a review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20(1):27–37. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_327_19
  11. Winkler J, Gkantidis N. Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: an in vivo analysis. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):1172. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-58075-7
  12. Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, et al. Intraoral digital scans-part 1: influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124(3):372–378. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003
  13. Arakida T, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, et al. Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62(3):324–329. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.12.005
  14. Wesemann C, Kienbaum H, Thun M, et al. Does ambient light affect the accuracy and scanning time of intraoral scans? J Prosthet Dent 2021;125(6):924–931. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.021
  15. Koseoglu M, Kahramanoglu E, Akin H. Evaluating the effect of ambient and scanning lights on the trueness of the intraoral scanner. J Prosthodont 2021;30(9):811–816. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13341
  16. Chen Y, Zhai Z, Li H, et al. Influence of liquid on the tooth surface on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2022;31(1):59–64. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13358
  17. Rapone B, Palmisano C, Ferrara E, et al. The accuracy of three intraoral scanners in the oral environment with and without saliva: a comparative study. Appl Sci 2020;10(21):7762. DOI: 10.3390/app10217762
  18. Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, et al. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(1):85–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.008
  19. Kachhara S, Nallaswamy D, Ganapathy DM, et al. Assessment of intraoral scanning technology for multiple implant impressions - a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20(2):141–152. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_379_19
  20. Kim MK, Kim JM, Lee YM, et al. The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners used in dentistry. Clin Anat 2019;32(3):430–438. DOI: 10.1002/ca.23334
  21. Vág J, Renne W, Revell G, et al. The effect of software updates on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners. Quintessence Int 2021;52(7):636–644. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.b1098315
  22. Ashraf Y, Sabet A, Hamdy A, et al. Influence of preparation type and tooth geometry on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont 2020;29(9):800–804. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13202
  23. Huang MY, Son K, Lee KB. Effect of distance between the abutment and the adjacent teeth on intraoral scanning: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125(6):911–917. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.02.034
  24. Siqueira R, Galli M, Chen Z, et al. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25(12):6517–6531. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04157-3
  25. World Medical Association.World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects . JAMA 2013;310(20):2191–2194. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
  26. Kattadiyil MT, Mursic Z, AlRumaih H, et al. Intraoral scanning of hard and soft tissues for partial removable dental prosthesis fabrication. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(3):444–448. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.022
  27. Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, et al. Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16(5):829. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16050829
  28. Ren S, Jiang X, Lin Y, et al. Crown accuracy and time efficiency of cement-retained implant-supported restorations in a complete digital workflow: a randomized control trial. J Prosthodont 2022;31(5):405–411. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13447
  29. Pan S, Guo D, Zhou Y, et al. Time efficiency and quality of outcomes in a model-free digital workflow using digital impression immediately after implant placement: a double-blind self-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30(7):617–626. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13447
  30. Yaman BC, Efes BG, Dörter C, et al. The effects of halogen and light-emitting diode light curing on the depth of cure and surface microhardness of composite resins. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(2):136–139. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.82613
  31. Patil GV, Lakhe P, Niranjane P. Maxillary expansion and its effects on circummaxillary structures: a review. Cureus 2023;15(1):e33755. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.33755
  32. Kim YK, Kim SH, Choi TH, et al. Accuracy of intraoral scan images in full arch with orthodontic brackets: a retrospective in vivo study. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25(8):4861–4869. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03792-0
  33. Rady A, Fischer J, Reeves S, et al. The effect of light intensity, sensor height, and spectral pre-processing methods when using NIR spectroscopy to identify different allergen-containing powdered foods. Sensors 2020;20(1):230. DOI: 10.3390/s20010230
  34. Sindhu S, Maiti S, Nallaswamy D. Factors affecting the accuracy of intraoral scanners-a systematic review. Ann Dent Spec 2023;11(1):40–52. DOI: 10.51847/izu17ACVUd
  35. Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardó A, Camps I. Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10(4):e361–e366. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54670
  36. Shenoy A, Maiti S, Nallaswamy D, et al. An in vitro comparison of the marginal fit of provisional crowns using the virtual tooth preparation workflow against the traditional technique. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2023;23(4):391–397. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_273_23
  37. Sindhu JS, Maiti S, Nallaswamy D. Comparative analysis on efficiency and accuracy of parallel confocal microscopy and three-dimensional in motion video with triangulation technology-based intraoral scanner under influence of moisture and mouth opening - a crossover clinical trial. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2023;23(3):234–243. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_65_23
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.