Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 318

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 access
Revilla-León, Marta, Jiang, Peng, Sadeghpour, Mehrad, Piedra-Cascón, Wenceslao, Zandinejad, Amirali, Özcan, Mutlu, Krishnamurthy, Vinayak R.·2020·The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 318

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.