The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

  • 제15권1호
  • /
  • Pages.11-21
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2005-7806(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-7814(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A comparative study to measure the sagittal condylar inclination using mechanical articulator, virtual articulator and jaw tracking device

  • Liya Ma (West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University) ;
  • Fei Liu (State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Sichuan University) ;
  • Jiansong Mei (West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University) ;
  • Jiarui Chao (West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University) ;
  • Zhenyu Wang (West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University) ;
  • Jiefei Shen (State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Sichuan University)
  • 투고 : 2022.09.29
  • 심사 : 2023.01.31
  • 발행 : 2023.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

PURPOSE. To compare the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) in dentate individuals measured by the different methods with mechanical articulator (MA), virtual articulator (VA), and a jaw tracking device (JTD) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 22 healthy dentate participants were enrolled in this study. For MA workflow, the SCI was obtained by a semi-adjustable articulator with protrusive interocclusal records. The SCI was also set on a VA by aligning intraoral scan (IOS) with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and facial scan (FS), respectively. These virtual workflows were conducted in a dental design software, namely VAIOS-CBCT and VAIOS-FS. Meanwhile, a JTD system was also utilized to perform the measurement. Intraclass correlation was used to assess the repeatability within workflows. The bilateral SCI values were compared by Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test for each workflow, and Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc p-value Bonferroni correction were used to compare the differences among four workflows. The agreement of VAIOS-CBCT, VAIOS-FS, and JTD compared with MA was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS. Intraclass correlation of the SCI revealed a high degree of repeatability for each workflow. There were no significant differences between the left and right sides (P > .05), except for VAIOS-CBCT (P = .028). Significant differences were not found between MA and VAIOS-FS (P > .05). Bland-Altman plots indicated VAIOS-CBCT, VAIOS-FS, and JTD were considered to substitute MA with high 95% limits of agreement. CONCLUSION. The workflow of VAIOS-FS provided an alternative approach to measure the SCI compared with MA.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Reicheneder C, Gedrange T, Baumert U, Faltermeier A, Proff P. Variations in the inclination of the condylar path in children and adults. Angle Orthod 2009;79: 958-63. https://doi.org/10.2319/081108-425.1
  2. Cimic S, Simunkovic SK, Suncana Simonic Kocijan, Matijevic J, Dulcic N, Catic A. Articulator-related registration and analysis of sagittal condylar inclination. Acta Clin Croat 2015;54:432-7.
  3. Hobo S, Shillingburg HT Jr, Whitsett LD. Articulator selection for restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1976;36:35-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(76)90231-6
  4. Oancea L, Stegaroiu R, Cristache CM. The influence of temporomandibular joint movement parameters on dental morphology. Ann Anat 2018;218:49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2018.02.013
  5. Farias-Neto A, Dias AH, de Miranda BF, de Oliveira AR. Face-bow transfer in prosthodontics: a systematic review of the literature. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40:686-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12081
  6. Hangai K, Aridome K, Wang CH, Igarashi Y. Clinical evaluation of semi-adjustable articulators: reproducibility of sagittal condylar path inclination assessed by a jaw-tracking system with six degrees of freedom. Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi 2008;52:360-5. https://doi.org/10.2186/jjps.52.360
  7. Donegan SJ, Christensen LV. Sagittal condylar guidance as determined by protrusion records and wear facets of teeth. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:469-72.
  8. Christensen C. The problem of the bite. Dent Cosmos 1905;47:1184-905.
  9. Li Q, Bi M, Yang K, Liu W. The creation of a virtual dental patient with dynamic occlusion and its application in esthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 2021;126:14-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.026
  10. Ahlers MO, Bernhardt O, Jakstat HA, Kordass B, Turp JC, Schindler HJ, Hugger A. Motion analysis of the mandible: guidelines for standardized analysis of computer-assisted recording of condylar movements. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18:201-23.
  11. Aslanidou K, Kau CH, Vlachos C, Saleh TA. The fabrication of a customized occlusal splint based on the merging of dynamic jaw tracking records, cone beam computed tomography, and CAD-CAM digital impression. J Orthod Sci 2017;6:104-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.JOS_61_16
  12. Celar AG, Tamaki K. Accuracy of recording horizontal condylar inclination and Bennett angle with the Cadiax compact. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:1076-81. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00951.x
  13. Hong SJ, Noh K. Setting the sagittal condylar inclination on a virtual articulator by using a facial and intraoral scan of the protrusive interocclusal position: A dental technique. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:392-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.031
  14. Yang S, Feng N, Li D, Wu Y, Yue L, Yuan Q. A novel technique to align the intraoral scans to the virtual articulator and set the patient-specific sagittal condylar inclination. J Prosthodont 2022;31:79-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13403
  15. Hong SJ, Choi Y, Park M, Paek J, Pae A, Kim HS, Kwon KR, Noh K. Setting the sagittal condylar inclination on a virtual articulator using intraoral scan of protrusive interocclusal position and cone beam computed tomography. J Prosthodont 2020;29:185-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13143
  16. Solaberrieta E, Garmendia A, Minguez R, Brizuela A, Pradies G. Virtual facebow technique. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:751-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.012
  17. Lepidi L, Chen Z, Ravida A, Lan T, Wang HL, Li J. A full-digital technique to mount a maxillary arch scan on a virtual articulator. J Prosthodont 2019;28:335-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13023
  18. Raghav D, Kapoor K, Alqahtani A, Kola M, Alqahtani F. Intricate relations and concepts of reference points in prosthodontics: A literature review. Eur J Prosthodont 2016;4:1-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/2347-4610.182959
  19. Wilkie ND. The anterior point of reference. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:488-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90079-9
  20. Kuralt M, Cmok Kucic A, Gaspersic R, Fidler A. Evaluation of gingival recessions with conventional versus digital methods. J Dent 2022;120:104093.
  21. Ahangari AH, Torabi K, Pour SR, Ghodsi S. Evaluation of the Cadiax Compact® II accuracy in recording preadjusted condylar inclinations on fully adjustable articulator. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13:504-8. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1176
  22. Anderson GC, Schulte JK, Arnold TG. An in vitro study of an electronic pantograph. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57: 577-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(87)90340-4
  23. Chang WS, Romberg E, Driscoll CF, Tabacco MJ. An in vitro evaluation of the reliability and validity of an electronic pantograph by testing with five different articulators. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:83-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.011
  24. Ercoli C, Graser GN, Tallents RH, Galindo D. Face-bow record without a third point of reference: theoretical considerations and an alternative technique. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:237-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70163-0
  25. Cimic S, Simunkovic SK, Badel T, Dulcic N, Alajbeg I, Catic A. Measurements of the sagittal condylar inclination: intraindividual variations. Cranio 2014;32:104-9. https://doi.org/10.1179/0886963413Z.00000000015
  26. Matsumura H, Tsukiyama Y, Koyano K. Analysis of sagittal condylar path inclination in consideration of Fischer's angle. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:514-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01590.x
  27. McCullock AJ. Making occlusion work: 2. Practical considerations. Dent Update 2003;30:211-6, 218-9. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2003.30.4.211
  28. Kattadiyil MT, Alzaid AA, Campbell SD. The relationship between centric occlusion and the maximal intercuspal position and their use as treatment positions for complete mouth rehabilitation: best evidence consensus statement. J Prosthodont 2021;30:26-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13316
  29. Weinberg LA. An evaluation of basic articulators and their concepts: Part II. Arbitrary, positional, semi adjustable articulators. J Prosthet Dent 1963;13:645-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(63)90134-3
  30. Tejo SK, Kumar AG, Kattimani VS, Desai PD, Nalla S, Chaitanya K K. A comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of three types of interocclusal recording materials-an in-vitro multi-centre study. Head Face Med 2012;8:27.