ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of ambient light level on scanning accuracy and duration of intraoral scanners: a clinical evaluation.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of natural light conditions and ambient lighting levels changing at different times of the day on the accuracy and duration of digital scans made with intraoral scanners in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsA volunteer individual with full dentition without any restorations in the maxilla and mandible was included in this study. The reference model was created by digitizing the plaster model obtained with vinyl polysiloxane-based impression material with a 3Shape E4 laboratory scanner. In order to evaluate the effect of natural light, digital scans were performed three times a day in the morning (10:00), noon (14:00), and evening (19:00) for 5 days. All scans were performed in constant ambient conditions with the curtains half-closed and the clinical lighting on. Ambient light intensity was measured from two different points before each scan. The obtained digital models were compared with the reference models using Geomagic Control X software, and root mean square (RMS) values were recorded. In addition, the duration of each scan was recorded in seconds. Statistical analysis of the data was performed with the SPSS 28.0 program. The conformity of the parameters to normal distribution was evaluated with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Intergroup differences and correlation analyses were performed by selecting appropriate tests. The significance level was accepted as p < 0.05.
resultsIn maxillary scans, significantly higher RMS values were obtained in the evening hours (p < 0.05), while in mandibular scans, no significant difference was found in RMS values for time periods. Negative and significant relationships were determined between maxillary and mandibular RMS values and room and headrest light levels (p < 0.05). A positive and significant relationship was found between room light level and maxillary scanning time. Significant relationships were also observed between both maxillary and mandibular scanning times and headrest light levels.
conclusionIt was observed that changing natural light levels at different times of the day could affect digital scanning accuracy, especially in complex anatomical regions such as the maxilla. In addition, it was determined that increasing lighting levels extended the scanning time. These findings reveal that providing ideal lighting conditions in digital scans is important both in terms of increasing accuracy and optimizing the processing time.
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.