The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intraoral digital scans—Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners
Open accessAbstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Digital scans have increasingly become an alternative to conventional impressions. Although previous studies have analyzed the accuracy of the available intraoral scanners (IOSs), the effect of the light scanning conditions on the accuracy of those IOS systems remains unclear. PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the impact of lighting conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different IOSs. MATERIAL AND METHODS A typodont was digitized by using an extraoral scanner (L2i; Imetric) to obtain a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file. Three IOSs were evaluated-iTero Element, CEREC Omnicam, and TRIOS 3-with 4 lighting conditions-chair light 10 000 lux, room light 1003 lux, natural light 500 lux, and no light 0 lux. Ten digital scans per group were recorded. The STL file was used as a reference to measure the discrepancy between the digitized typodont and digital scans by using the MeshLab software. The Kruskal-Wallis, 1-way ANOVA, and pairwise comparison were used to analyze the data. RESULTS Significant differences for trueness and precision mean values were observed across different IOSs tested with the same lighting conditions and across different lighting conditions for a given IOS. In all groups, precision mean values were higher than their trueness values, indicating low relative precision. CONCLUSIONS Ambient lighting conditions influenced the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOSs tested. The recommended lighting conditions depend on the IOS selected. For iTero Element, chair and room light conditions resulted in better accuracy mean values. For CEREC Omnicam, zero light resulted in better accuracy, and for TRIOS 3, room light resulted in better accuracy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Parize, H., Dias Corpa Tardelli, J., Bohner, L., Sesma, N., Muglia, V. A., & Cândido dos Reis, A. (2022) · The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.008 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Revilla-León, M., Jiang, P., Sadeghpour, M., Piedra-Cascón, W., Zandinejad, A., Özcan, M., & Krishnamurthy, V. R.
- Venue
- The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 372-378
- ISSN
- 0022-3913 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2996436979
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intraoral digital scans—Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003
- The paper
- Revilla-León, M., Jiang, P., Sadeghpour, M., Piedra-Cascón, W., Zandinejad, A., Özcan, M., & Krishnamurthy, V. R. (2020). Intraoral digital scans—Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.