Three-dimensional repositioning accuracy of semiadjustable articulator cast mounting systems

Purpose To study the effects of altering condylar settings and pin openings on the trueness and precision of virtual articulators vs. mechanical articulators. Materials and Methods Maxillary and mandibular typodonts with fiducial markers were mounted on a mechanical Artex‐CR articulator, and the mandibular teeth were prepared to allow guidance solely by the posterior determinants of the articulator and the incisal table. The relationship of the mounted typodonts was preserved digitally by scanning using manufacturer transfer plate adaptors. On the mechanical articulator, pattern resin was allowed to set between the maxillary and mandibular occlusal surfaces (area #25‐30) at the endpoints of dynamic movements at 3 condylar inclinations (SCI): 10°, 30°, and 45°, n = 12/inclination, or at 3 incisal pin openings (2, 5, and 10 mm, n = 12/opening). All other articulator settings were kept constant. Resin specimens attached to the typodonts were scanned within 5 minutes of setting, then removed, and the articulated typodonts rescanned. Fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) #25‐30 were designed on the virtual articulator using identical parameters to the mechanical articulator. Dynamic virtual movements were used to sculpt the design, and a file of the design was saved. The files of both types of samples were aligned and overlaid. Interocclusal separation was measured in triplicate at the indentation created by the mesiolabioincisal point angle on the incisal edge of #8 and the mesiobucco‐occlusal point angle of #3. Trueness and precision of both types of articulators were calculated and compared using one‐way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). Results There was no statistically significant difference at altered pin openings in either trueness (F = 0.202, p = 0.37) or precision (F = 3.134, p = 0.09) for the majority of measurements. The only significant difference was in the precision between the 2 types of articulators at 5 mm incisal opening, and only at the anterior measurement point (F = 15.134, p = 0.0008); however, these differences were less than 100 μm. When the SCI was altered, there was no statistically significant difference (F = 3.624, p > 0.05) between the virtual and mechanical articulators in trueness for 5 of the 6 measurements obtained (F = 3.624, p = 0.07) or for all of the precision measurements (F = 3.529, p = 0.07). The one trueness measurement that was significantly different (F = 9.237, p = 0.006) occured at SCI of 10°, and it was less than 100 µm. Conclusions Dynamic movements on the virtual articulator were shown to be as true and precise as to the mechanical articulator. When there were deviations, these deviations were less than 100 µm and thus, these deviations may not be clinically relevant.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Dynamic Virtual Articulation: Trueness and Precision

Hsu

Driscoll

Romberg

et al. 2019

“…Beside errors incorporated during the scanning and virtual articulation process, the use of physical articulators could have contributed to the distortion observed. Tan et al investigated the 3D repositioning accuracy of single articulator mounting plates onto the lower member of articulators, and found that black mounting plates used with the Artex CR articulator had a repositioning accuracy of 8.4 to 8.9 μm in the anteroposterior direction, 5.0 to 8.9 μm in the mediolateral direction, and 1.6 to 3.5 μm in the vertical direction. In contrast, a feasibility study conducted previously found that the repositioning of both mounted casts on the articulator and closure of articulator resulted in a greater interarch distortion, of 9 to 25 μm, which could have affected the 3D articulation accuracy for all three scanner‐CAD systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three‐Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models – Part I: System Trueness and Precision

Yee

Esguerra²,

Chew

et al. 2017

Self Cite

“…8 To date, there is little evidence that MA systems are interchangeable. [36][37][38][39][40][41] This may not be an issue in the digital environment.…”

Section: Verifying a Cr Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Goldstein

Goodacre

2022

The ever‐expanding world of digital technology has produced many changes, including the availability of virtual articulators. The use of such digital technology requires an understanding of the features that have been available with different mechanical articulators. These features include such items as facebow, intercondylar distance, incisal guide table, condylar inclination, reference plane, lateral condylar inclination, immediate mandibular translation, and ability to verify a centric relation record. This paper reviews the adjustable features that have been available with different types of mechanical articulators so that clinicians can determine if these features should be included in the virtual articulators they choose to use. Regardless of whether one is utilizing a mechanical or virtual articulator, the rationale for which type of articulator to select is the same and is predicated on the needs of the patient, the occlusal philosophy of the clinician, and the required accuracy.