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.

Comparison of the performance of various virtual articulator mounting procedures: a self-controlled clinical study

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

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

A comparative study based on the mandibular movement track and the movement parameters of the virtual articulator in simulating occlusal adjustment

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

Clinical occlusion analysis versus semi-adjustable articulator and virtual articulator occlusion analysis

Design of Occlusal Wear Facets of Fixed Dental Prostheses Driven by Personalized Mandibular Movement.

A Comparison of the Clinical Effect of Two Fixation Methods on Hoffa Fractures

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

Comparative evaluation of condylar guidance obtained by three different interocclusal recording materials in a semi-adjustable articulator and digital panoramic radiographic images in dentate patients: An in vivo study

Selecting a Virtual Articulator: An Analysis of the Factors Available with Mechanical Articulators and their Potential Need for Inclusion with Virtual Articulators

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

Virtual versus jaw simulation in Oral implant education: a randomized controlled trial

Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An<i> in</i><i> vitro</i> study

Accuracy of a Novel Virtual Articulator for Recording Three-Dimensional Dentition

Determining the accuracy of articulator interchangeability and hinge axis reproducibility

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

A study on the precision of voxel- and surface-based mandibular superimposition

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

An innovative evaluation method for clinical comparative analysis of occlusal contact regions obtained via intraoral scanning and conventional impression procedures: a clinical trial

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