PhD Candidate, Department of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Director of Specialist in Implant-Prosthesis Postgraduate Program, Rey Juan Carlos University, Spain.
J Dent. 2022 Jun;121:104138. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104138. Epub 2022 Apr 22.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of ambient light illuminance on the accuracy and scanning time of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in complete-arch implant scans.
Seven IOSs (TRIOS 3, Primescan, Element 5D, i700, i500, CS3700, and CS3600) at 5 ambient lighting illuminances (100, 500, 1000, 5000, and 10 000 lux) were evaluated. An edentulous cast with 4 implants was selected as the master model. An implant scan body was tightened on each implant. The cast was digitized by using a laboratory scanner to obtain a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file, and 50 scans (10 per ambient light condition) were recorded with each IOS. Scanning time was recorded by using a digital chronograph. Intraoral scan deviations were calculated by using a 3D metrology software program (Geomagic Control X). Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α=0.05).
The trueness and precision values obtained for each IOS tested were significantly different under the varying lighting conditions assessed. TRIOS 3 (34.0 ± 3.3 µm trueness; 24.5 ± 14.9 µm precision), Element 5D (34.5 ± 7.1 µm trueness; 25.9 ± 7.6 µm precision), and CS3700 (34.9. ±13.0 µm trueness; 34.6 ± 19.2 µm precision) performed better under 100 lux illumination, CS3600 (69.5 ± 24.0 µm trueness; 36.6 ± 20.1 µm precision) at 500 lux; i500 (36.2 ± 5.1 µm trueness; 21.4 ± 6.8 µm precision) at 1000 lux; i700 (34.8 ± 2.2 µm trueness; 15.4 ± 5.0 µm precision) at 5000 lux, and Primescan (37.4 ± 37.3 µm trueness; 26.2 ± 26.2 µm precision) at 10,000 lux. Additionally, the scanning time was different under different illuminance for each IOS. The fastest IOS in all light conditions was Primescan, with significant differences with all the groups (P<.01), followed by TRIOS 3 in all groups except under 100 lux illumination, where i700 was the second fastest.
Ambient light influenced the accuracy and scanning time of IOSs assessed; however, the effect was not the same for all devices. It is necessary to optimize ambient light illuminance for each IOS to maximize scanning accuracy.
本体外研究旨在评估环境光照照度对不同口内扫描仪（IOS）在全牙弓种植体扫描中的准确性和扫描时间的影响。
评估了 7 种 IOS（TRIOS 3、Primescan、Element 5D、i700、i500、CS3700 和 CS3600）在 5 种环境光照照度（100、500、1000、5000 和 10000 lux）下的性能。选择一个带有 4 个种植体的无牙颌模型作为主模型。在每个种植体上拧紧种植体扫描体。使用实验室扫描仪对模型进行数字化，以获得参考标准 tessellation language (STL) 文件，并使用每个 IOS 记录 50 次扫描（每种环境光照条件下记录 10 次）。使用数字记时器记录扫描时间。使用 3D 计量软件程序（Geomagic Control X）计算口内扫描偏差。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和两两比较检验分析数据（α=0.05）。
在评估的不同光照条件下，每个测试的 IOS 获得的准确性和精度值均有显著差异。TRIOS 3（34.0 ± 3.3 µm 准确性；24.5 ± 14.9 µm 精度）、Element 5D（34.5 ± 7.1 µm 准确性；25.9 ± 7.6 µm 精度）和 CS3700（34.9 ± 13.0 µm 准确性；34.6 ± 19.2 µm 精度）在 100 lux 光照下表现更好，CS3600（69.5 ± 24.0 µm 准确性；36.6 ± 20.1 µm 精度）在 500 lux 光照下表现更好，i500（36.2 ± 5.1 µm 准确性；21.4 ± 6.8 µm 精度）在 1000 lux 光照下表现更好，i700（34.8 ± 2.2 µm 准确性；15.4 ± 5.0 µm 精度）在 5000 lux 光照下表现更好，而 Primescan（37.4 ± 37.3 µm 准确性；26.2 ± 26.2 µm 精度）在 10,000 lux 光照下表现最好。此外，每个 IOS 的扫描时间在不同光照下也有所不同。在所有光照条件下，最快的 IOS 是 Primescan，与所有组均有显著差异（P<.01），其次是除 100 lux 光照外所有组中的 TRIOS 3，而在 100 lux 光照下，i700 是第二快的。
环境光照会影响评估的 IOS 的准确性和扫描时间，但对所有设备的影响并不相同。有必要为每个 IOS 优化环境光照照度，以最大程度地提高扫描准确性。
