Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Research and Education|Articles in Press

Comparison of accuracy in digital and conventional cross-mounting

Published:December 03, 2022DOI:


      Statement of problem

      The use of digital interocclusal registration scans for virtual articulation and mounting has been studied extensively; however, the accuracy of the cross-mounting procedures in a digital workflow is not well understood.


      The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital and conventional cross-mounting by measuring the 3-dimensional deviation at each step of sequential cross-mounting.

      Material and methods

      A set of reference casts and complete-arch interim restorations was prepared for complete-arch complete-coverage restorations, hand-articulated, and mounted in an articulator. The reference casts were then scanned with and without the interim restorations to generate 4 reference casts for cross-mounting. For the conventional group, 15 sets of the 4 casts were printed. Polyvinyl siloxane interocclusal registration records were made of the reference casts for each set, and casts were sequentially cross-mounted. For the digital workflow, 15 sets of bilateral interocclusal registration scans were made of the mounted reference casts and used to align the cast scans. Three-dimensional deviations at 2 anterior and 2 posterior points were recorded between the experimental mountings and the reference casts on each set of casts. Nonpaired t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the average discrepancy between the 2 groups, and the pooled anterior versus posterior discrepancies were compared (α=.05).


      A significant difference was found between conventional and digital cross-mounting procedures (P<.001), but no significant difference was found in either group, conventional (P=.116) or digital (P=.987), at each step of the sequential mountings. The mean ±standard deviation at the final set of related casts in the conventional workflow was 201.6 ±137.0 μm and that in the digital group was 50.3 ±47.5 μm, with a significant difference between anterior and posterior deviations in the digital group (P=.028), but not in the conventional group (P=.143). The mean ±standard deviation anterior conventional deviation was 175.6 ±119.2 μm and that in the digital group was 36.9 ±30.9 μm. The mean ±standard deviation posterior conventional deviation was 227.6 ±50.2 μm and that in the digital group was 63.7 ±57.2 μm.


      Digital cross-mounting was more accurate than conventional cross-mounting, although increased deviation was found in the anterior region compared with the posterior region.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. The glossary of prosthodontic terms: ninth edition.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: e1-e105
        • Venezia P.
        • Torsello F.
        • D'Amato S.
        • Cavalcanti R.
        Digital cross-mounting: a new opportunity in prosthetic dentistry.
        Quintessence Int. 2017; 48: 701-709
        • Li Z.
        • Xia Y.
        • Chen K.
        • Zhao H.
        • Liu Y.
        Maintenance of the maxillomandibular position with digital workflow in oral rehabilitation: a technical note.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 280-282
        • Radu M.
        • Radu D.
        • Abboud M.
        Digital recording of a conventionally determined centric relation: a technique using an intraoral scanner.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 228-231
        • Freilich M.A.
        • Altieri J.V.
        • Wahle J.J.
        Principles for selecting interocclusal records for articulation of dentate and partially dentate casts.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68: 361-367
        • Heshmati R.H.
        • Nagy W.W.
        • Wirth C.G.
        • Dhuru V.B.
        Delayed linear expansion of improved dental stone.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88: 26-31
        • Michalakis K.X.
        • Stratos A.
        • Hirayama H.
        • Pissiotis A.L.
        • Touloumi F.
        Delayed setting and hygroscopic linear expansion of three gypsum products used for cast articulation.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 102: 313-318
        • Chun J.H.
        • Pae A.
        • Kim S.H.
        Polymerization shrinkage strain of interocclusal recording materials.
        Dent Mater. 2009; 25: 115-120
        • Michalakis K.X.
        • Pissiotis A.
        • Anastasiadou V.
        • Kapari D.
        An experimental study on particular physical properties of several interocclusal recording media. Part II: linear dimensional change and accompanying weight change.
        J Prosthodont. 2004; 13: 150-159
        • Tejo S.K.
        • Kumar A.G.
        • Kattimani V.S.
        • Desai P.D.
        • Nalla S.
        • Chaitanya K.K.
        A comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of three types of interocclusal recording materials-an in-vitro multi-centre study.
        Head Face Med. 2012; 8: 27
        • Breeding L.C.
        • Dixon D.L.
        Compression resistance of four interocclusal recording materials.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68: 876-878
        • Mullick S.C.
        • Stackhouse Jr., J.A.
        • Vincent G.R.
        A study of interocclusal record materials.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 46: 304-307
        • Campos A.A.
        • Nathanson D.
        Compressibility of two polyvinyl siloxane interocclusal record materials and its effect on mounted cast relationships.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 82: 456-461
        • Joda T.
        • Katsoulis J.
        • Brägger U.
        Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016; 18: 946-954
        • de Oliveira N.R.C.
        • Pigozzo M.N.
        • Sesma N.
        • Laganá D.C.
        Clinical efficiency and patient preference of digital and conventional workflow for single implant crowns using immediate and regular digital impression: a meta-analysis.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31: 669-686
        • Solaberrieta E.
        • Otegi J.R.
        • Goicoechea N.
        • Brizuela A.
        • Pradies G.
        Comparison of a conventional and virtual occlusal record.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 92-97
        • Ries J.M.
        • Grünler C.
        • Wichmann M.
        • Matta R.E.
        Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods.
        J Prosthet Dent. 19 April 2021; ([Epub ahead of print.])
        • Edher F.
        • Hannam A.G.
        • Tobias D.L.
        • Wyatt C.C.L.
        The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 904-912
        • Yee S.H.X.
        • Esguerra R.J.
        • Chew A.A.Q.
        • Wong K.M.
        • Tan K.B.C.
        Three-Dimensional static articulation accuracy of virtual models-part II: effect of model scanner-CAD systems and articulation method.
        J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 137-144
        • Park J.M.
        • Jeon J.
        • Heo S.J.
        Accuracy comparison of buccal bite scans by five intra-oral scanners.
        J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 2018; 34: 17-31
        • Wong K.Y.
        • Esguerra R.J.
        • Chia V.A.P.
        • Tan Y.H.
        • Tan K.B.C.
        Three-Dimensional accuracy of digital static interocclusal registration by three intraoral scanner systems.
        J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 120-128
        • Yee S.H.X.
        • Esguerra R.J.
        • Chew A.A.Q.
        • Wong K.M.
        • Tan K.B.C.
        Three-Dimensional static articulation accuracy of virtual casts - part I: system trueness and precision.
        J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 129-136
      2. New American dental association specification no. 25 for dental gypsum products.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1972; 84: 640-644