The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effects of different lighting conditions on the accuracy of intraoral scanning

  • Mehmet Karakuzu (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University) ;
  • Caner Ozturk (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Medipol University) ;
  • Zuleyha Basar Karakuzu (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University) ;
  • Mustafa Zortuk (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University)
  • Received : 2024.08.03
  • Accepted : 2024.10.22
  • Published : 2024.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which intraoral scanning are affected by clinical conditions, and whether ambient lighting and different color temperatures have an impact on the accuracy of intraoral scanner, as well as to evaluate scanning time. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twelve different environments were created using various ambient lighting conditions (0, 500, 1000 and 1500 lux) and color temperatures (white, blue and yellow). A partially edentulous mandibular model with two implants and a three-unit bridge was scanned under each environment until 10 digital models were obtained, and scanning times were recorded using a virtual stopwatch. A 3D analysis was performed on the obtained digital models, and the data were analyzed using a software. The generalized linear model analysis and Tukey multiple comparison test were used to analyse the data (P < .05). RESULTS. The effect of lux, color temperature, and scanning times on RMS data was found to be significant (P < .001). The mean RMS value was the highest in the 0 lux group and the lowest in the 500 lux group. Regarding the color temperature, the highest RMS value was in the white color group and the lowest in the yellow color group. Scanning times were similar among the 0, 500 and 1000 lux groups, with a significant increase in the 1500 lux group. CONCLUSION. Different ambient lighting conditions and color temperatures have significant effect on the accuracy of intraoral scanning.

Keywords

References

  1. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26:101-21. 
  2. Rutkunas V, Geciauskaite A, Jegelevicius D, Vaitiekunas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10 Suppl 1:101-20. 
  3. Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Tsagarakis A, Kourakis G, Pavlakis E. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: a single-blinded in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:581-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.023
  4. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-4.  https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054
  5. Akarslan ZZ, Yildirim Bicer AZ. Influence of gag reflex on dental attendance, dental anxiety, self-reported temporomandibular disorders and prosthetic restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40:932-9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12106
  6. Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:673-82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
  7. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10. 
  8. Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:403-6.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.003
  9. Joda T, Bragger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:e185-9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12600
  10. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. a randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont 2016;25:282-7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12410
  11. Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Barbour ME. Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 2010;20:243-9.  https://doi.org/10.3233/BME-2010-0638
  12. Ziegler M. Digital impression taking with reproducibly high precision. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:159-63. 
  13. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17. 
  14. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  15. Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:1253-62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9
  16. Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Shin IH, Kim M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:221-30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.018
  17. Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:225-32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002
  18. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, Farges JC, Fages M, Ducret M. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017;2017:8427595. 
  19. Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016;47:343-9. 
  20. Arakida T, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Suzuki T, Minakuchi S. Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:324-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.12.005
  21. Cuesta E, Rico JC, Fernandez P, Blanco D, Valino G. Influence of roughness on surface scanning by means of a laser stripe system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2009;43:1157-66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1794-9
  22. Vukasinovic N, Mozina J, Duhovnik J. Correlation between incident angle, measurement distance, object colour and the number of acquired points at CNC laser scanning, J Mech Eng 2012;58:23-8.  https://doi.org/10.5545/sv-jme.2011.053
  23. Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:3-12.  https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3
  24. Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:354-62.  https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354
  25. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144:914-20.  https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209
  26. Revilla-Leon M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascon W, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Intraoral digital scans: part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:575-80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.004
  27. Viohl J. Dental operating lights and illumination of the dental surgery. Int Dent J 1979;29:148-63. 
  28. Koseoglu M, Kahramanoglu E, Akin H. Evaluating the effect of ambient and scanning lights on the trueness of the intraoral scanner. J Prosthodont 2021;30:811-6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13341
  29. Revilla-Leon M, Subramanian SG, Att W, Krishnamurthy VR. Analysis of different illuminance of the room lighting condition on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner. J Prosthodont 2021;30:157-62.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13276
  30. Ochoa-Lopez G, Cascos R, Antonaya-Martin JL, Revilla-Leon M, Gomez-Polo M. Influence of ambient light conditions on the accuracy and scanning time of seven intraoral scanners in complete-arch implant scans. J Dent 2022;121:104138. 
  31. Wesemann C, Kienbaum H, Thun M, Spies BC, Beuer F, Bumann A. Does ambient light affect the accuracy and scanning time of intraoral scans? J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:924-31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.021
  32. Ma Y, Guo YQ, Saleh MQ, Yu H. Influence of ambient light conditions on intraoral scanning: a systematic review. J Prosthodont Res 2024;68:237-45.  https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_23_00098
  33. Blanco D, Fernandez E, Cuesta E, Suarez M. Influence of ambient light on the quality of laser digitized surfaces. In: International Conference of Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Systems. World Congress on Engineering. Vol. 1. London: Conference proceedings; July 2-4, 2008. p. 32-7.