Marta Revilla-León1,2,3, Sai Ganesh Subramanian4, Mutlu Özcan5, Vinayak Raman Krishnamurthy4. 1. College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, TX. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3. Researcher at Revilla Research Center, Madrid, Spain. 4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 5. Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University of Zürich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of ambient lighting conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner (IOS) when maxillary complete-arch and maxillary right quadrant digital scans were performed in a patient. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One complete dentate patient was selected. A complete maxillary arch vinyl polysiloxane impression was obtained and poured using Type IV dental stone. The working cast was digitized using a laboratory scanner (E4 Dental Scanner; 3Shape) and the reference standard tessellation language (STL file) was obtained. Two groups were created based on the extension of the maxillary digital scans performed namely complete-arch (CA group) and right quadrant (RQ) groups. The CA and RQ digital scans of the patient were performed using an IOS (TRIOS 3; 3Shape) with 4 lighting conditions chair light (CL), 10 000 lux, room light (RL), 1003 lux, natural light (NL), 500 lux, and no light (ZL), 0 lux. Ten digital scans per group at each ambient light settings (CL, RL, NL, and ZL) were consecutively obtained (n = 10). The STLR file was used to analyze the discrepancy between the digitized working cast and digital scans using MeshLab software. Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA, and pair-wise comparison were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Significant difference in the trueness and precision values were found across different lighting conditions where RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error compared with the other lighting conditions tested followed by CL, NL, and ZL. On the CA group, RL condition also obtained the best accuracy values, CL and NL conditions performed closely and under ZL condition the mean error presented the highest values. On the RQ group, CL condition presented the lowest absolute error when compared with the other lighting conditions evaluated. A pair-wise multicomparison showed no significant difference between NL and ZL conditions. In all groups, the standard deviation was higher than the mean errors from the control mesh, indicating that the relative precision was low. CONCLUSIONS: Light conditions significantly influenced on the scanning accuracy of the IOS evaluated. RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error value of the digital scans performed. The extension of the digital scan was a scanning accuracy influencing factor. The higher the extension of the digital scan performed, the lower the accuracy values obtained. Furthermore, ambient light scanning conditions influenced differently depending on the extension of the digital scans made.
PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of ambient lighting conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner (IOS) when maxillary complete-arch and maxillary right quadrant digital scans were performed in a patient. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One complete dentate patient was selected. A complete maxillary arch vinyl polysiloxane impression was obtained and poured using Type IV dental stone. The working cast was digitized using a laboratory scanner (E4 Dental Scanner; 3Shape) and the reference standard tessellation language (STL file) was obtained. Two groups were created based on the extension of the maxillary digital scans performed namely complete-arch (CA group) and right quadrant (RQ) groups. The CA and RQ digital scans of the patient were performed using an IOS (TRIOS 3; 3Shape) with 4 lighting conditions chair light (CL), 10 000 lux, room light (RL), 1003 lux, natural light (NL), 500 lux, and no light (ZL), 0 lux. Ten digital scans per group at each ambient light settings (CL, RL, NL, and ZL) were consecutively obtained (n = 10). The STLR file was used to analyze the discrepancy between the digitized working cast and digital scans using MeshLab software. Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA, and pair-wise comparison were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Significant difference in the trueness and precision values were found across different lighting conditions where RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error compared with the other lighting conditions tested followed by CL, NL, and ZL. On the CA group, RL condition also obtained the best accuracy values, CL and NL conditions performed closely and under ZL condition the mean error presented the highest values. On the RQ group, CL condition presented the lowest absolute error when compared with the other lighting conditions evaluated. A pair-wise multicomparison showed no significant difference between NL and ZL conditions. In all groups, the standard deviation was higher than the mean errors from the control mesh, indicating that the relative precision was low. CONCLUSIONS: Light conditions significantly influenced on the scanning accuracy of the IOS evaluated. RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error value of the digital scans performed. The extension of the digital scan was a scanning accuracy influencing factor. The higher the extension of the digital scan performed, the lower the accuracy values obtained. Furthermore, ambient light scanning conditions influenced differently depending on the extension of the digital scans made.