ArticleBMC oral health2025
Influence of ambient light on the accuracy of different face scanning methods: an in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFace scanners provide a viable method for capturing a patient's face geometry. To optimize their accuracy, influencing factors, like the ambient light, need to be examined.
methodsA human head model with eight pins attached to its surface was used to investigate the accuracy of four face scanning methods (Face Hunter, iPad, Medit i700, single camera photogrammetry) under three illumination levels (500 lx, 5000 lx, 20 000 lx). An industrial CT scan was used as reference. Two alignment-areas - full face (AL-FF) and spheres (AL-KG) and two investigation areas - center face (UB-CF) and full face (UB-FF), were used during the examination. The root-mean-square-error (RMSE) was employed as a measure. Separated by trueness and precision, a one-way ANOVA was performed with post hoc Games-Howell tests for each scanning method.
resultsAll scanners showed significant differences between the illumination levels. For most test groups, the Face Hunter acquired its lowest RMSE values under 500 lx. The same can be said for the Medit i700, even though for trueness, differences to 5000 lx were random. Single camera photogrammetry performed better at higher illumination levels, but only random differences between 5000 lx and 20 000 lx were seen. For the iPad, different results for optimal illumination were found regarding trueness and precision, as well as the investigation areas. All accuracy results were labelled as highly reliable, except for the iPad´s trueness results.
conclusionScanner-dependent influence of ambient light was shown in this in-vitro study. Face Hunter and Medit i700 performed better under a darker illumination of 500 lx, whereas single camera photogrammetry needed brighter lighting. For the iPad no tested lighting situation showed clear advantages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.