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: Accuracy comparison of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator between an analog facebow record and a digital photography technique.
    Author: Revilla-León M, Zeitler JM, Strommer S, Barmak AB, Kois JC.
    Journal: J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Apr 11; ():. PubMed ID: 38609764.
    Abstract:
    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Digital photographs can be used for transferring the maxillary cast into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator; however, its accuracy remains unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator by using an analog and a digital standardized photography technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A maxillary cast was digitized (T710) and positioned into a dental mannequin. The dental midline was not coincident with the facial midline and the maxillary occlusal plane was tilted. A reference scan of the assembled mannequin was obtained by using a facial scanner (Instarisa). Two groups were created based on the technique used to transfer the maxillary cast into the articulator (Panadent PCH): conventional facebow record (CNV group) or digital photograph (Photo group) (n=10). In the CNV group, facebow records (Kois Dentofacial analyzer system) were digitized (T710) and used to transfer the maxillary scan into the articulator by aligning it with the reference platform (Kois adjustable platform). In the Photo group, photographs with a reference glasses (Kois Reference Glasses) positioned into the mannequin were acquired. Each photograph was aligned with the maxillary scan. Then, the maxillary scan was transferred into the articulator by using the true horizontal axis information contained in the photograph. On the reference scan and each specimen, 10 linear measurements between the buccal cusps of the maxillary scan and the horizontal plane of the virtual articulator and a linear measurement between the maxillary dental midline and articulator midline were calculated. The measurements of the reference scan were used as a control to compute trueness and precision. Trueness was analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA followed by the pairwise comparison Tukey test (α=.05). Precision was evaluated by using the Levene and Wilcoxon Rank sum tests (α=.05). RESULTS: The overall discrepancy measured in the CNV group was 0.620 ±0.396 mm, while in the Photo group it was 1.282 ±0.118 mm. Significant trueness differences were found in the midline (P=.037), anterior (P=.050), posterior right (P<.001), posterior left (P=.012), and overall discrepancy (P<.001) between the CNV and Photo groups. Significant precision discrepancies were found in the midline (P=.012), posterior right (P<.001), anterior (P<.001), posterior left (P=.002), and overall discrepancy (P<.001) between the CNV and Photo groups. CONCLUSIONS: The facebow record method impacted the accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer. The Photo group obtained better trueness in the midline transfer than the CNV group; however, the CNV group demonstrated better trueness in the anterior, posterior right, posterior left, and overall discrepancy of the maxillary cast transfer compared with the Photo group. Overall, the Photo group obtained better precision than the CNV group.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]