Table 8.

Comparison of efficiency (time taken and images obtained) of two different technology-based intraoral scanners under the influence of different mouth opening (30 mm and 50 mm) and moisture (presence and absence) conditions

Arch	Oral conditions	Intraoral scanner	Time taken			Images obtained
			Mean±SD	SE	P	Mean±SD	SE	P
Upper	30 mm mouth opening	3D in motion video technology with triangulation	59.16±12.02	4.90	0.28	1135.50±331.54	135.35	0.50
		Parallel confocal microscopy	71.16±23.34	9.53		1015.33±259.63	105.99
	55 mm mouth opening	3D in motion video technology with triangulation	61.00±10.84	4.42	0.16	1338.66±257.68	105.19	0.52
		Parallel confocal microscopy	81.33±31.60	12.90		1212.33±394.13	160.90
Lower	30 mm mouth opening	3D in motion video technology with triangulation	59.16±13.60	5.55	0.04*	1213.50±357.49	145.94	0.01*
		Parallel confocal microscopy	43.66±9.72	3.97		733.50±136.46	55.71
	55 mm mouth opening	3D in motion video technology with triangulation	70.66±17.30	7.06	0.80	1424.33±331.90	135.49	0.04*
		Parallel confocal microscopy	68.16±15.91	6.49		1036.66±237.42	96.92
Upper	Absence of moisture	3D in motion video technology with triangulation	55.00±11.94	4.87	0.79	1110.66±222.08	90.66	0.14
		Parallel confocal microscopy	57.33±17.15	7.00		901.66±237.00	96.75
	Presence of moisture	3D in motion video technology with triangulation	58.33±8.35	3.41	0.11	1318.33±283.34	115.67	0.60
		Parallel confocal microscopy	81.33±31.60	12.90		1212.33±394.13	160.90
Lower	Absence of moisture	3D in motion video technology with triangulation	52.66±10.55	4.31	0.44	1008.50±207.37	84.66	0.07*
		Parallel confocal microscopy	47.33±12.62	5.15		780.33±186.70	76.22
	Presence of moisture	3D in motion video technology with triangulation	73.83±17.35	7.08	0.53	1478.00±285.33	116.48	0.03*
		Parallel confocal microscopy	67.66±15.53	6.34		1088.00±246.75	100.73

*Level of significance P<0.05. 3D: Three dimensional, SD: Standard deviation, SE: Standard error