Research Associate, Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders and Department of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Pedodontics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Doctoral student, Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health and Mesantis 3D Dental-Radiology, Berlin, Germany.
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Jun;125(6):924-931. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.021. Epub 2020 May 30.
Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are based on light-optical imaging methods. However, little is known about whether the ambient light in dental practices influences the accuracy and scanning time of the IOS.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of different illuminations on the accuracy of 4-unit and complete-arch scans of 6 IOSs. In addition, the required scanning time was evaluated.
A reference structure was attached to the first premolars (P) and second molars (M) in both quadrants (L/R) of a maxillary model. The resulting measured distances were M1-P1, M2-P2, P1-P2, and M1-M2. The investigation included 6 IOSs: TRIOS 3 (TRI), Cerec Omnicam (OC), iTero Element (ITE), CS 3600 (CS), Planmeca Emerald (EME), and GC Aadva (AAD). With each IOS, 17 scans at different illuminances (100, 500, 1000, and 5000 lux) were performed (N = 408). The precision and trueness for all distances were determined, and the scanning time was recorded. For statistical analyses, the Levene tests (precision) and 1-way analysis of variance with the post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference and Games-Howell tests (trueness) were calculated.
Illuminance significantly influenced the trueness of 4-unit scans for OC, EME, and AAD. TRI, OC, ITE, and CS demonstrated comparable results. AAD (>96 ±22 μm; 1000 lux) and EME (>248 ±88 μm; 500 lux) revealed greater deviations. For complete-arch scans, illuminance did not influence TRI and AAD, but significant variations were detected for ITE, CS, EME, and AAD. The least deviations were achieved with TRI and OC. The scanning time was extended for all IOSs except ITE at more than 500 lux. The shortest scanning times with OC and EME were recorded at 100 lux; with TRI, CS, and AAD at 500 lux; and with ITE at both 100 and 5000 lux. At all illuminances, the fastest scans were obtained with TRI.
Ambient light was found to influence the accuracy and scanning time of IOSs. This influence varies depending on the device. For 4-unit scans, the effect was not clinically relevant, but for complete-arch scans, accuracy and scanning time can be improved with appropriate lighting.
口内扫描仪（IOS）基于光学成像方法。然而，对于牙科环境中的环境光是否会影响 IOS 的准确性和扫描时间，知之甚少。
本体外研究的目的是调查不同光照对 6 种 IOS 的 4 单位和全弓扫描的准确性的影响。此外，还评估了所需的扫描时间。
在上颌模型的每个象限（L/R）的第一前磨牙（P）和第二磨牙（M）上附着一个参考结构。所得测量距离为 M1-P1、M2-P2、P1-P2 和 M1-M2。研究包括 6 种 IOS：TRIOS 3（TRI）、Cerec Omnicam（OC）、iTero Element（ITE）、CS 3600（CS）、Planmeca Emerald（EME）和 GC Aadva（AAD）。使用每种 IOS 在不同照度（100、500、1000 和 5000 勒克斯）下进行了 17 次扫描（N=408）。确定了所有距离的精度和准确度，并记录了扫描时间。对于统计分析，计算了 Levene 检验（精度）和 1 路方差分析，后验 Tukey Honestly 显著性差异和 Games-Howell 检验（准确度）。
照度显著影响 OC、EME 和 AAD 的 4 单位扫描的准确性。TRI、OC、ITE 和 CS 表现出可比的结果。AAD（>96±22μm；1000 勒克斯）和 EME（>248±88μm；500 勒克斯）显示出更大的偏差。对于全弓扫描，照度不影响 TRI 和 AAD，但在 ITE、CS、EME 和 AAD 中检测到显著变化。TRI 和 OC 的偏差最小。除 ITE 外，所有 IOS 的扫描时间均延长，超过 500 勒克斯。OC 和 EME 的最短扫描时间记录在 100 勒克斯；TRI、CS 和 AAD 在 500 勒克斯；ITE 在 100 和 5000 勒克斯均有记录。在所有照度下，TRI 的扫描速度最快。
环境光被发现会影响 IOS 的准确性和扫描时间。这种影响因设备而异。对于 4 单位扫描，影响不具有临床意义，但对于全弓扫描，可以通过适当的照明来提高准确性和扫描时间。
