Analysis of Different Illuminance of the Room Lighting Condition on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of An Intraoral Scanner. Issue 2 (7th November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Revilla‐León, Marta; Subramanian, Sai Ganesh; Att, Wael; Krishnamurthy, Vinayak R.
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontics. Volume 30:Issue 2(2021)
• Page Start: 157
• Page End: 162
• Publication Date: 2020-11-07
• Subjects: Ambient lighting conditions -- digital impression -- intraoral scanner -- influencing factors -- prosthodontics; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13276
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-941X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To measure the influence of illuminance of the ambient light between 1000 lux (room light) and 10 000 lux (chair light) on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner (IOS). Material and methods: A typodont was digitized using an extraoral scanner to obtain a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file. Ten groups were created based on the different illuminance of the ambient light conditions tested starting from 1000 lux (no chair light) to 10000 lux (chair light) in increments of 1000 lux by increasing the distance between the chair light and the mannequin, with the room light turned on. Ten digital scans per group were obtained (n = 10) using an IOS (Trios 3; 3Shape). The accuracy of the digital scans was evaluated with respect to the reference mesh of the typodont using a 3D mesh processing software. Kruskal‐Wallis and pair‐wise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). Results: Significant difference for trueness and precision values were found among the groups ( p < 0.001). The 1000‐lux group exhibited the lowest discrepancy values with a median of 26.33 μm and an interquartile range (IQR) of 40.04 μm (11.97‐52.00) ( p < 0.001); while the 5000‐lux group obtained the highest discrepancy values with a median of 46.38 μm and an IQR of 99.94 μm (19.05‐118.98) ( p < 0.001). The pair‐wise multi‐comparison showed no difference between the 8000‐ and 4000‐lux groups ( p = 0.287). In all groups, the IQR was higher than the mean errors from the control mesh, suggesting that the relative precision was low. Conclusions: A 1000‐lux illumination lighting condition is recommended to maximize the scanning accuracy of the IOS tested; the chair light should be avoided. Furthermore, the scanning accuracy response under the illuminance range tested presented a lack of monotonicity.