Analyzing the accuracy of a cross-mounting technique utilizing digitized interocclusal records.
accuracy
articulation
cross‐mounting
digital scan
Journal
Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists
ISSN: 1532-849X
Titre abrégé: J Prosthodont
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9301275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jul 2024
10 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
30
01
2024
accepted:
28
05
2024
medline:
10
7
2024
pubmed:
10
7
2024
entrez:
10
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To compare the accuracy of a partially digital cross-mounting workflow of direct scans of interocclusal records to a conventional workflow by analyzing the deviations of sequentially cross-mounted casts. A set of reference casts, comprising maxillary and mandibular full-arch prepared casts and interim prostheses, was articulated, mounted, and scanned to generate four reference casts for cross-mounting. In the conventional approach, 15 sets of these four casts were printed. Polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) records were made using the reference casts and utilized for sequential cross-mounting. In the partially digital group, the same PVS interocclusal records were scanned and used for digital cross-mounting via design software. The mean deviations of both groups from the reference cast were analyzed using a 3D inspection software program. Statistical tests, including paired t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA), were conducted to compare the average discrepancies between the two groups and to evaluate discrepancies in the anterior and posterior regions (α = 0.05). The range of discrepancies was similar in both the conventional and partially digital groups. The final set of related casts had a mean deviation of 201.58 ± 136.98 mm in the conventional workflow and 248.69 ± 164.71 mm in the partially digital workflow. No statistically significant difference was found between conventional and partially digital groups (p = 0.091). Error propagation was examined by comparing discrepancies at each step within the cross-mounting process. In the conventional group, no significant difference was found (p = 0.148), but a significant difference was found among groups in the partially digital group at each step of sequential mounting (p < 0.001). A significant difference was observed between anterior and posterior deviations in the partially digital group (p < 0.001), but not in the conventional group (p = 0.143). The study reveals that there is no statistically significant difference between conventional and partially digital cross-mounting workflows. However, within the partially digital group, a significant difference in deviation emerges across cross-mounting steps, with increased deviation in the anterior region.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Greater New York of Academy of Prosthodontics (GNYAP)
ID : 283209
Informations de copyright
© 2024 by the American College of Prosthodontists.
Références
Venezia P, Torsello F, D'Amato S, Cavalcanti R. Digital cross‐mounting: a new opportunity in prosthetic dentistry. Quintessence Int. 2017;48(9):701‐709.
Shillingburg H, Sather D, Wilson Jr E, Cain J, Mitchel D, Blanco L. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics 4th Ed. Chicago. Quintessence. 2012;119(130):299‐345.
New American Dental Association specification no. 27 for direct filling resins: Council on Dental Materials and Devices. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;94(6):1191‐1194.
Li Z, Xia Y, Chen K, Zhao H, Liu Y. Maintenance of the maxillomandibular position with digital workflow in oral rehabilitation: a technical note. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(3):280‐282.
Sweeney S, Smith DK, Messersmith M. Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(2):245‐252.
Wong KY, Esguerra RJ, Chia VAP, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Three‐dimensional accuracy of digital static interocclusal registration by three intraoral scanner systems. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(2):120‐128.
Zarbah MA. Accuracy of cast articulation: a literature review. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2018;8(3):151‐156.
Koch GK, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ. Accuracy in the digital workflow: from data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):749‐754.
Yee SHX, Esguerra RJ, Chew AAQA, Wong KM, Tan KBC. Three‐dimensional static articulation accuracy of virtual models–part i: system trueness and precision. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(2):129‐136.
Botsford KP, Frazier MC, Ghoneima AA, Utreja A, Bhamidipalli SS, Stewart KT. Precision of the virtual occlusal record. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(5):751‐757.
Mullick SC, Stackhouse Jr JA, Vincent GR. A study of interocclusal record materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;46(3):304‐307.
Luu D, Kan E, Kim S‐W, Lee JD, Lee SJ. Comparison of accuracy in digital and conventional cross‐mounting. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; Dec 3 :S0022‐3913(22)00693‐X. doi: 10.1016/J.prosdent.2022.11.001.
Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions‐an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12:11‐28.
Solaberrieta E, Otegi JR, Goicoechea N, Brizuela A, Pradies G. Comparison of a conventional and virtual occlusal record. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(1):92‐97.
Edher F, Hannam AG, Tobias DL, Wyatt CC. The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(6):904‐912.
Kim JE, Kim SJ, Kwon DH, Shim JS, Kim JH. Mounting casts on a mechanical articulator by using digital multisource data: a dental technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(1):41‐45.
Lee JD, Luu D, Yoon TW, Lee SJ. Accuracy comparison of bilateral versus complete arch interocclusal registration scans for virtual articulation. J Prosthet Dent. 2023; Feb20:S0022‐3913(23)00070‐7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.028.
Park JH, Ryu JJ, Shin SW, Lee SH. Factors affecting the accuracy of occlusal registration for the digital workflow. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:874‐879