2002
DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.129064
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In vivo and in vitro evaluation of occlusal indicator sensitivity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
56
1
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
3
56
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, specific drawbacks have been described in the literature for articulating papers: they range from poor association between mark size and occlusal load (Qadeer et al , 2012), to low-reproducibility of contacts or operator-variability (Kerstein, 2008). The moisture (saliva) of intraoral environment, or some smooth materials adopted for tooth restorations (i.e: gold, metal alloys or ceramics), along with a repeated use of the indicator, are also able to affect the ink-release from articulating paper and thus impair reproducibility of markings (Saracoglu and Ozpinar, 2002). Moreover, despite a wide range of materials is available, no clear guidelines or standards have been described for proper use or for specific clinical scenarios (Millstein, 2008); we may speculate that there is still room for improvement (i.e:…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, specific drawbacks have been described in the literature for articulating papers: they range from poor association between mark size and occlusal load (Qadeer et al , 2012), to low-reproducibility of contacts or operator-variability (Kerstein, 2008). The moisture (saliva) of intraoral environment, or some smooth materials adopted for tooth restorations (i.e: gold, metal alloys or ceramics), along with a repeated use of the indicator, are also able to affect the ink-release from articulating paper and thus impair reproducibility of markings (Saracoglu and Ozpinar, 2002). Moreover, despite a wide range of materials is available, no clear guidelines or standards have been described for proper use or for specific clinical scenarios (Millstein, 2008); we may speculate that there is still room for improvement (i.e:…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Carossa et al, 29 using an articulator-mounted cast and recording strips, concluded that the assessment of OCs was significantly influenced by paper thickness, operator experience, bite force, and time. Saracoglu et al 30 used acrylic resin casts mounted in an articulator and a universal testing machine to compare occlusal indicator reliability with an in vivo measurement. They recommended that the recording materials be used carefully in the mouth and that teeth be dry during occlusal analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Articulating paper under extraoral conditions was also used to evaluated OCs. [29][30][31] Articulating paper is preferred primarily for detecting OCs because of low cost and ease of application. 29 However, it should only be used for qualitative analysis to establish the location and number of contacts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Variations in articulating paper marking may also arise from differences in paper thickness, the extent to which it is impregnated with saliva, and the force of the patient's bite. Because of these types of variation, many researchers have been able to demonstrate that contact profiles determined using articulating paper are not reproducible, even when made under apparently identical conditions 9,20,31,38,39 .…”
Section: -3 -A Comparative Analysis Between Digitized Occlusal Force mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Repeated utilization, probably because of saliva impregnation, can significantly reduce its precision and sensitivity, regardless of the type of support employed 39 . In contrast, Tscan is totally unaffected by moisture 39 .…”
Section: -3 -A Comparative Analysis Between Digitized Occlusal Force mentioning
confidence: 99%