Abstract:Statement of problem Different digital methods have been described for transferring the maxillary cast into a virtual articulator; however, its accuracy remains uncertain. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator by using analog and digital methods. Material and methods A maxillary typodont with 5 markers was positioned into a mannequin, which was digitized by using an industrial scanner (ATOS Q) and an extraoral scan of the typodont obtained (T710). Three groups were created based on the technique used to transfer the maxillary cast into the virtual articulator (Panadent PCH Articulator): conventional facebow record (CNV group), digital photograph (P group), and facial scanning (FS group) (n=10). In the CNV group, conventional facebow records (Kois Dentofacial analyzer system) were digitized (T710) and used to mount the maxillary scan into the articulator by aligning it with the reference platform (Kois adjustable platform) (DentalCAD). In the P group, photographs with the reference glasses (Kois Reference Glasses 3.0) were positioned in the mannequin. Each photograph was superimposed with the maxillary scan. Then, the maxillary scan was transferred into the virtual articulator by using the true horizontal plane information of the photograph. In the FS group, facial scans with an extraoral scan body (Kois Scan Body) were positioned in the mannequin by using a facial scanner (Instarisa). The extraoral scan body was digitized by using the same extraoral scanner. The digitized extraoral scan body provided the true horizontal plane information that was used to mount the maxillary scan into the articulator, along with the Kois disposable tray of the scan body. On the reference scan and each specimen, 15 linear measurements between the markers of the maxillary scans and the horizontal plane of the virtual articulator and 3 linear measurements between the maxillary dental midline and articulator midline were calculated. The measurements of the reference scan were used as a control to assess trueness and precision. Trueness was analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA followed by the pairwise comparison Tukey tests (α=.05). Precision was evaluated by using the Levene and pairwise comparisons Wilcoxon Rank sum tests. Results No significant trueness ( P =.996) or precision ( P =.430) midline discrepancies were found. Significant posterior right ( P <.001), anterior ( P =.005), posterior left ( P <.001), and overall ( P <.001) trueness discrepancies were revealed among the groups. The P group obtained the best posterior right, posterior left, and overall trueness and precision. The P and FS groups demonstrated the best anterior trueness, but no anterior precision discrepancies were found. Conclusions The techniques tested affected the accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator. In the majority of the parameters assessed, the photography method tested showed the best trueness and precision values. However, the maxillary cast transfer accuracy ranged from 137 ±44 μm to 453 ±176 μm among the techniques tested.

Face-bow record without a third point of reference: theoretical considerations and an alternative technique

Three-dimensional assessment of the reliability of a postural face-bow transfer

Reproduction accuracy of articulator mounting with an arbitrary face-bow vs. average values-a controlled, randomized, blinded patient simulator study

Evaluation of accuracy of transfer of the maxillary occlusal cant of two articulators using two facebow/semi-adjustable articulator systems: An in vivo study

An overview of the different digital facebow methods for transferring the maxillary cast into the virtual articulator

An evaluation of face-bow transfer for the planning of orthognathic surgery

Single step approach to make diagnostic impressions of both the arches and face bow transfer: a novel technique

Accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator by using analog and digital facebow record methods

Comparison of two arbitrary cast transfer systems with a kinematic facebow for mounting a maxillary cast on a semiadjustable articulator

Traditional face-bow transfer versus three-dimensional virtual reconstruction in orthognathic surgery

Mounting digital casts on a virtual articulator by using two-dimensional facial photographs with a facebow: A technique

Accuracy comparison of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator between an analog facebow record and a digital photography technique

Evaluation of sagittal inclination of occlusal plane and horizontal condylar guidance using various anterior reference points on arcon and nonarcon articulators

The importance of the seated condylar position in orthodontic correction

Comparison of the accuracy of a 3-dimensional virtual method and the conventional method for transferring the maxillary cast to a virtual articulator

Assessment of maxillary canting on cone beam computed tomography and digital models: A retrospective study and proposal of a method

Determining the accuracy of articulator interchangeability and hinge axis reproducibility

Use of a Simple Intraoral Instrument to Standardize Film Alignment and Improve Image Reproducibility.

The Orientation in Space of the Maxillary Arch: New and Old Devices in the Prosthetic Digital Workflow

The Accuracy of Transferring Casts in Maximal Intercuspal Position to a Virtual Articulator.

A Method for Three-Dimensional Analysis of Occlusal Contacts from Digital Dental Casts