Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2022.60.4.431

Posterior rehabilitation considering mandibular movement with digital facebow transfer and virtual articulator: A case report  

Kim, Min-Beom (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Kwon, Ho-Beom (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Lim, Young-Jun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Kim, Myung-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.60, no.4, 2022 , pp. 431-441 More about this Journal
Abstract
The digital facebow device records the trajectory of the mandibular movement where it is then reflected on the computer-aided design software, leading to an improvement on treatment outcomes of prosthetic restorations. In this clinical case, using a digital technology, an implant placement and prosthetic restoration were done in a patient who has lost maxillary and mandibular molars. Following an intraoral scan, a surgical stent for implant surgery was fabricated based on digital diagnostic wax-up, and implants were installed. After six months of sufficient osseointegration, customized abutments and the first temporary prostheses were delivered. Then two months later, at an abutment level, an intraoral scan and digital facebow transfer device were used to mount the intraoral scan data on a virtual articulator, and record the mandibular movements. Once the second temporary prostheses were fabricated and delivered on a basis of the mandibular movement, the definitive zirconia prostheses were designed and delivered based on a stabilized occlusion that was duplicated via double scan technique.
Keywords
Articulator; Computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM); Digital technology; Face bow; Implant;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:416-35.
2 Kapos T, Ashy LM, Gallucci GO, Weber HP, Wismeijer D. Computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing in prosthetic implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:110-7.
3 Woodford SC, Robinson DL, Mehl A, Lee PVS, Ackland DC. Measurement of normal and pathological mandibular and temporomandibular joint kinematics: A systematic review. J Biomech 2020;111:109994.   DOI
4 Lepidi L, Galli M, Mastrangelo F, Venezia P, Joda T, Wang HL, Li J. Virtual articulators and virtual mounting procedures: where do we stand? J Prosthodont 2021;30:24-35.   DOI
5 Sun Y, Luebbers HT, Agbaje JO, Schepers S, Politis C, Van Slycke S, Vrielinck L. Accuracy of dental implant placement using CBCT-derived mucosa-supported stereolithographic template. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:862-70.   DOI
6 Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687-94.   DOI
7 Lee J, Yoon M, Park T, Chun I, Yun K. The accuracy evaluation of digital surgical stents according to supported type. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2018;56:8-16.   DOI
8 Pettersson A, Kero T, Gillot L, Cannas B, Faldt J, Soderberg R, Nasstrom K. Accuracy of CAD/CAM-guided surgical template implant surgery on human cadavers: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:334-42.   DOI
9 Saleh WK, Ariffin E, Sherriff M, Bister D. Accuracy and reproducibility of linear measurements of resin, plaster, digital and printed study-models. J Orthod 2015;42:301-6.   DOI
10 Joda T, Bragger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1430-5.   DOI
11 Park C. Application of ARCUS digma I, II systems for full mouth reconstruction: a case report. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2016;32:345-50.   DOI
12 Zambrana N, Sesma N, Fomenko I, Dakir EI, Pieralli S. Jaw tracking integration to the virtual patient: A 4D dynamic approach. J Prosthet Dent 2022;S0022-3913(22)00110-X.[published online ahead of print, 2022 Mar 16]
13 Ury E, Fornai C, Weber GW. Accuracy of transferring analog dental casts to a virtual articulator. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:305-13.   DOI
14 Pettersson A, Komiyama A, Hultin M, Nasstrom K, Klinge B. Accuracy of virtually planned and template guided implant surgery on edentate patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:527-37.   DOI
15 Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:465-72.
16 Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:92.   DOI
17 Serino G, Hultin K. Periimplant disease and prosthetic risk indicators: a literature review. Implant Dent 2019;28:125-37.   DOI
18 Celar AG, Tamaki K, Nitsche S, Schneider B. Guided versus unguided mandibular movement for duplicating intraoral eccentric tooth contacts in the articulator. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:14-22.   DOI