Evaluation of Precision and Reliability of Different Bite Registration Materials Using Conventional and Digital Articulator Systems

Year 2023, Volume: 24 Issue: 4, 280 - 285, 30.12.2023

Ecem Eser Süleyman Agüloğlu

Abstract

Objective: Conventional and digital articulators are currently used to associate the lower and upper jaw models. However, thereare not enough studies comparing the reliability of different interocclusal registration materials used in conventional and digital articulatory acquisition methods. This study aims to contribute to the literature on this subject.
Materials and Methods: Plastic mandibular and maxillary models were attached to a semi-adjustable articulator adjusted tothemean values in the maximum intercuspal position. Forty interocclusal recordings were obtained using 4 different interocclusal registration materials (n=10). Impressions from the master models and all interocclusal recordings were digitized. For eachinterocclusal registration sample, measurements were made between the marked points on the correlated models using both digital and conventional methods, and all measurements were compared with the measurements made on the plastic master model. Twoway analysis of variance was used to compare the data obtained from the measurements between the groups, and Dunnett’stest was used as a multiple comparison test to compare the measurements of all groups with the initial measurements.
Results: It was concluded that the measurements obtained with the conventional method gave more successful results thanthoseobtained with the digital method, and polyvinyl siloxane materials had more successful results than wax samples in both methods.
Conclusion: According to the method used in this study, the conventional technique has reliable results (p<0,05) and continues tobevalid. Software development is needed to scan and use interocclusal recordings for digital model articulation.

Keywords

Bite registration, centric relation, digital bite registration, interdental relation

References

• 1. McHorris WH. Centric relation: defined. J Gnathol 1986; 5: 5-21.
• 2. Duminil G. Occlusion. Espace ID; 2016. https://books.google.com.tr/ books?id=_fRHAQAACAAJ
• 3. 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: 245-52.
• 4. Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans CA, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S. Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 51-6.
• 5. Ockert-Eriksson G, Eriksson A, Lockowandt P, Eriksson O. Materials for interocclusal records and their ability to reproduce a 3-dimensional jaw relationship. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13: 152-8
• 6. Porter JL, Carrico CK, Lindauer SJ, Tüfekçi E. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners on the accuracy of digital model articulation. J Orthod 2018; 45: 275-82.
• 7. Lee SJ, Kim SW, Lee JJ, Cheong CW. Comparison of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Scanners: Evaluation of Surface Topography and Precision. Dent J (Basel) 2020; 8: 52.
• 8. Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen YW, Natto Z, eal. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. J Prosthodont 20; 29: 281-6.
• 9. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 15; 59: 236-42. 10. Kettenbach Dental Futar Instructions. https://www.kettenbachdental.com/products/ impression-material/futar/futar-d-futar-dfast/
• 11. Kulzer Variotime Bite Instructions. https://www.kulzer.com/int2/ en/products/variotimbite.html
• 12. Zhermack Occlufast Rock Instruction. https://www.zhermack.com/ en/product/ occlufasrock/