Citation Information :
Sindhu S. 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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
