These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of accuracy in digital and conventional cross-mounting.
    Author: Luu D, Kan E, Kim SW, Lee JD, Lee SJ.
    Journal: J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Oct; 132(4):784-791. PubMed ID: 36473749.
    Abstract:
    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The use of digital interocclusal registration scans for virtual articulation and mounting has been studied extensively; however, the accuracy of the cross-mounting procedures in a digital workflow is not well understood. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital and conventional cross-mounting by measuring the 3-dimensional deviation at each step of sequential cross-mounting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A set of reference casts and complete arch interim restorations was prepared for complete arch complete-coverage restorations, hand-articulated, and mounted in an articulator. The reference casts were then scanned with and without the interim restorations to generate 4 reference casts for cross-mounting. For the conventional group, 15 sets of the 4 casts were printed. Polyvinyl siloxane interocclusal registration records were made of the reference casts for each set, and casts were sequentially cross-mounted. For the digital workflow, 15 sets of bilateral interocclusal registration scans were made of the mounted reference casts and used to align the cast scans. Three-dimensional deviations at 2 anterior and 2 posterior points were recorded between the experimental mountings and the reference casts on each set of casts. Nonpaired t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the average discrepancy between the 2 groups, and the pooled anterior versus posterior discrepancies were compared (α=.05). RESULTS: A significant difference was found between conventional and digital cross-mounting procedures (P<.001), but no significant difference was found in either group, conventional (P=.116) or digital (P=.987), at each step of the sequential mountings. The mean ±standard deviation at the final set of related casts in the conventional workflow was 201.6 ±137.0 μm and that in the digital group was 50.3 ±47.5 μm, with a significant difference between anterior and posterior deviations in the digital group (P=.028), but not in the conventional group (P=.143). The mean ±standard deviation anterior conventional deviation was 175.6 ±119.2 μm and that in the digital group was 36.9 ±30.9 μm. The mean ±standard deviation posterior conventional deviation was 227.6 ±50.2 μm and that in the digital group was 63.7 ±57.2 μm. CONCLUSIONS: Digital cross-mounting was more accurate than conventional cross-mounting, although increased deviation was found in the anterior region compared with the posterior region.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]