Abstract
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.
Purpose
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).
Results
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.
Conclusions
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 accessOne-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:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The glossary of prosthodontic terms: ninth edition.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: e1-e105
- Digital cross-mounting: a new opportunity in prosthetic dentistry.Quintessence Int. 2017; 48: 701-709
- Maintenance of the maxillomandibular position with digital workflow in oral rehabilitation: a technical note.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 280-282
- Digital recording of a conventionally determined centric relation: a technique using an intraoral scanner.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 228-231
- Principles for selecting interocclusal records for articulation of dentate and partially dentate casts.J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68: 361-367
- Delayed linear expansion of improved dental stone.J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88: 26-31
- Delayed setting and hygroscopic linear expansion of three gypsum products used for cast articulation.J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 102: 313-318
- Polymerization shrinkage strain of interocclusal recording materials.Dent Mater. 2009; 25: 115-120
- 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
- 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
- Compression resistance of four interocclusal recording materials.J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68: 876-878
- A study of interocclusal record materials.J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 46: 304-307
- Compressibility of two polyvinyl siloxane interocclusal record materials and its effect on mounted cast relationships.J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 82: 456-461
- Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016; 18: 946-954
- 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
- Comparison of a conventional and virtual occlusal record.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 92-97
- Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods.J Prosthet Dent. 19 April 2021; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.005
- The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 904-912
- 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
- Accuracy comparison of buccal bite scans by five intra-oral scanners.J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 2018; 34: 17-31
- Three-Dimensional accuracy of digital static interocclusal registration by three intraoral scanner systems.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 120-128
- Three-Dimensional static articulation accuracy of virtual casts - part I: system trueness and precision.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 129-136
- New American dental association specification no. 25 for dental gypsum products.J Am Dent Assoc. 1972; 84: 640-644
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 03, 2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
