The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner
Open accessAbstract
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 STL R 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.
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
Cites
A method for registration of 3-D shapes
Besl, P. J., & McKay, N. D. (1992) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.121791 · Cited by 18,103
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: When One Study Is Just not Enough
Garg, A. X., Hackam, D., & Tonelli, M. (2008) · Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.2215/cjn.01430307 · Cited by 2,258
Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision
Ender, A., & Mehl, A. (2013) · The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(13)60028-1 · Cited by 622
The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review
Joda, T., Zarone, F., & Ferrari, M. (2017) · BMC Oral Health · doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0415-0 · Cited by 426
Revilla-León, M., Jiang, P., Sadeghpour, M., Piedra-Cascón, W., Zandinejad, A., Özcan, M., & Krishnamurthy, V. R. (2020) · The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003 · Cited by 318
Self-citationGoracci, C., Franchi, L., Vichi, A., & Ferrari, M. (2016) · The European Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv077 · Cited by 244
Aragón, M. L. C., Pontes, L. F., Bichara, L. M., Flores-Mir, C., & Normando, D. (2016) · The European Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1093/ejo/cjw033 · Cited by 228
Tsirogiannis, P., Reissmann, D. R., & Heydecke, G. (2016) · The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.028 · Cited by 196
Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners
Kim, J., Park, J.-M., Kim, M., Heo, S.-J., Shin, I. H., & Kim, M. (2016) · The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.018 · Cited by 181
Canto, G. D. L., Pachêco‐Pereira, C., Lagravère, M. O., Flores‐Mir, C., & Major, P. W. (2015) · Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research · doi:10.1111/ocr.12068 · Cited by 110
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., Subramanian, S. G., Özcan, M., & Krishnamurthy, V. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Prosthodontics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-12-30
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 107-113
- ISSN
- 1059-941X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-849X
- OpenAlex
- W2995743808
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 24.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jopr.13135
- The paper
- Revilla‐León, M., Subramanian, S. G., Özcan, M., & Krishnamurthy, V. R. (2020). Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner. Journal of Prosthodontics. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13135
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.