Virtual facebow technique

Solaberrieta, Eneko; Garmendia, Asier; Mínguez, Rikardo; Brizuela-Velasco, Aritza; Pradíes, Guillermo

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.012

Cited by 88 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study provides validation of another component of the digital workflow. Tools necessary for the use of the digital articulator have been described, including a virtual facebow transfer technique for transferring the location of a digitized cast of the patient to a virtual articulator …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Dynamic Virtual Articulation: Trueness and Precision

Hsu

Driscoll

Romberg

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Dynamic Virtual Articulation: Trueness and Precision

Hsu

Driscoll

Romberg

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the conventional approach, the use of the facebow transfer and physically mounting the cast are mandatory. For programming a virtual articulator, several techniques have been proposed …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Solaberrieta et al used a “virtual facebow” to align the intraoral scan to the 3D face scan, and then oriented the digital maxillary model to a virtual articulator by matching the face landmarks . Other techniques, sharing a similar idea, also rely on the face scan . However, the face scanner and software are not readily available in most dental clinics and labs, making this approach hard to implement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Full‐Digital Technique to Mount a Maxillary Arch Scan on a Virtual Articulator

Lepidi

Chen

Ravidà

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mounting casts accurately on an articulator is a prerequisite for the treatment planning/execution of complex dental cases that require occlusal rehabilitation. A full digital approach to transfer the position of maxillary dentition to a virtual articulator, by using intraoral scans and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) files is presented. This technique offers reduced chairside time and the flexibility of choosing the orientation plane. It can be used in orthognathic surgeries, complex interdisciplinary treatments requiring a CBCT scan with a large field of view, or treatments that already have the head CT or CBCT scans from previous diagnosis/treatment.

show abstract

“…Digital alternatives to the conventional facebow have been proposed and studied with mixed results . Problems still exist relating patient‐specific data to the transverse axis and esthetic reference planes, and most do not address the edentulous arch or if no verifiable interocclusal position is present; however, there are few issues with relating the maxillary arch to the cranial base.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Problems still exist relating patient‐specific data to the transverse axis and esthetic reference planes, and most do not address the edentulous arch or if no verifiable interocclusal position is present; however, there are few issues with relating the maxillary arch to the cranial base. The axis can be located by stereophotogrammetry, anatomic landmarks, mathematical calculation of an instantaneous axis, reverse engineering and collision avoidance, or electronic jaw movement analyzers . Alignment of the maxillary and mandibular virtual casts to the virtual articulator and simulation of mandibular movements is the ultimate goal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%