Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical study comparing the accuracy of interocclusal records, digitally obtained by three different devices

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 19 May 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the present cross-sectional study was to compare the interocclusal contact records obtained by three different digital methods (intra- and extraoral digital scanners and T-Scan III system) with the conventional method (articulating paper).

Materials and methods

Twenty-five healthy volunteers were selected. As a control group, maximum intercuspation occlusal contacts were registered and photographed from the patients with an 8 µm articulating paper. Then, intraoral conventional elastomer impressions were taken and after obtaining the corresponding plaster models of every patient they were scanned with an extraoral scanner (Zfx Evolution, Zimmer Biomet Dental) (group 1). Moreover, digital impressions were made with an intraoral scanner (Trios Color POD, Phibo, 3Shape) and contacts were also registered (group 2). Finally, T-Scan III records were made and stored for further analysis (group 3). Two previously calibrated examiners independently evaluated the interocclusal contacts from every group. Data was analyzed by using Kappa index test and Pearson’s chi-square test. Diagnostic tests and ROC curve were also performed.

Results

Kappa interoperator index was 70.6% (better agreement). In Kappa intraoperator index, the best value was obtained in the intraoral scanner group (moderate agreement) and the worst with T-Scan III group (low agreement). ROC curve showed highest values in the intraoral scanner group (0.817) and lowest values in the T-Scan III group (0.613).

Conclusion

Results suggest greater reliability to record occlusal contacts with the intraoral scanner.

Clinical relevance

Intraoral scanners seem to be reliable in registering intermaxillary occlusal contacts when compared with the current gold standard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Nadjmi N, Mollemans W, Daelemans A, Van Hemelen G, Schutyser F, Bergé S (2010) Virtual occlusion in planning orthognathic surgical procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39(5):457–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arslan Y, Bankoğlu Güngör M, KarakocaNemli S, Kökdoğan Boyacı B, Aydın C (2017) Comparison of maximum intercuspal contacts of articulated casts and virtual casts requiring posterior fixed partial dentures. J Prosthodont 26(7):594–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Da Silva Martins MJ, Caramelo FJ, Ramalho da Fonseca JA, Gomes Nicolau PM (2014) In vitro study on the sensibility and reproducibility of the new T-Scan®III HD system. Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent e Cir Maxilofac 55(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpemd.2014.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J (2016) Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial J Prosthodont 25(4):282–287

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Delong R, Ko C-C, Anderson GC, Hodges JS, Douglas WH (2002) Comparing maximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental cats. J Prosthet Dent 88(6):622–630. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.129379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Solaberrieta E, Otegi JR, Goicoechea N, Brizuela A, Pradies G (2015) Comparison of a conventional and virtual occlusal record. J Prosthet Dent 114(1):92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.01.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alghazzawi TF (2016) Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practica l implementation. J Prosthodont Res 60(2):72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Luo Q, Ding Q, Zhang L, Xie QF (2019) Quantitative analysis of occlusal changes in posterior partial fixed implant supported prostheses. J Peking Univ Health Sci 51(6):1119–1123. https://doi.org/10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.06.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Abarza Arellano L, Sandoval Vidal P, Flores Velásquez M (2016) Registro interoclusal digital en rehabilitación oral: «Sistema T-Scan® III». Revisión bibliográfica. Rev Clín Periodon Implantol Rehabil Oral 9(2):95–101

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ruttitivapanich N, Tansalarak R, Palasuk J, Pumklin J (2019) Correlation of bite force interpretation in maximal intercuspal position among patient, clinician, and T-scan III system. Eur J Dent 13(3):330–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Seo JM, Oh WS, Lee JJ (2019) A technique for verifying the accuracy of the virtual mounting of digital scans against the actual occlusal contacts. J Prosthet Dent 121:729–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Solaberrieta E, Arias A, Brizuela A, Garikano X, Pradies G (2016) Determining the requirements, section quantity, and dimension of the virtual occlusal record. J Prosthet Dent 115:52–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fasbinder DJ, Poticny DJ (2010) Accuracy of occlusal contacts for crowns with chairside CAD/CAM techniques. Int J Comput Dent 13:303–316

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U (2018) Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont 27:35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Carey JP, Craig M, Kerstein RB, Radke J (2007) Determining a relationship between applied occlusal load and articulating paper mark area. Open Dent J 1:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saad MN, Weiner G, Ehrenberg D, Weiner S (2008) Effects of load and indicator type upon occlusal contact markings. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 85:18–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Qadeer S, Kerstein R, Kim RJ, Huh JB, Shin SW (2012) Relationship between articulation paper mark size and percentage of force measured with computerized occlusal analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 4:7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Saracoglu A, Ozpinar B (2002) In vivo and in vitro evaluation of occlusal indicator sensitivity. J Prosthet Dent 88(5):522–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Straga RW (2009) Comparison of occlusal contacts on mounted dental models to contacts identified on digital 3D models using a new virtual alignment method. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, p 10–67

  20. DeLong R, Knorr S, Anderson GC, Hodges J, Pintado MR (2007) Accuracy of contacts calculated from 3D images of occlusal surfaces. J Dent 35(6):528–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gintaute A, Keeling AJ, Osnes CA, Zitzmann NU, Ferrari M, Joda T (2020) Precision of maxillo-mandibular registration with intraoral scanners in vitro. J Prosthodont Res 64(2):114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Abdulateef S, Edher F, Hannam AG, Tobias D, Wyatt CCL (2020) Clinical accuracy and reproducibility of virtual interocclusal records. J Prosthet Dent 124(6):667–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gümüş HÖ, Kılınç Hİ, Tuna SH, Ozcan N (2013) Computerized analysis of occlusal contacts in bruxism patients treated with occlusal splint therapy. J Adv Prosthodont 5(3):256–261. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.3.256

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Solaberrieta E, Etxaniz O, Otegi JR, Brizuela A, Pradies G (2017) Customized procedure to display T-Scan occlusal contacts. J Prosthet Dent 117(1):18–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wong KY, Rcsed M, Esguerra RJ, Chia VAP, HanTan Y, Choon Tan KB (2018) Three-dimensional accuracy of digital static interocclusal registration by three intraoral scanner systems. J Prosthodont 27:120–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project was not supported by the industry. All funds came from Complutense University of Madrid.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservative and Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    Cristina Fraile, Alberto Ferreiroa, Marta Romeo, Raquel Alonso & Guillermo Pradíes

Authors
  1. Cristina Fraile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alberto Ferreiroa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marta Romeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raquel Alonso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guillermo Pradíes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Romeo.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the present study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The present study has the approval of the ethical committee of the “Hospital Clínico San Carlos” with the number C.P. – C.I. 16/273-E.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the present study. They were informed verbally and in writing of the advantages and disadvantages of participating in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: n the discussion on page 1961 in the following sentence „This can be explained because of the thickness of the articulating paper (8 μm) used as a gold standard is significantly lower than that of the T-Scan sensors (250 μm) and this can influence on the results, generating false positives, as well as errors when obtaining the registration [23].“ (250 µm) has to be replaced by (100 µm).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fraile, C., Ferreiroa, A., Romeo, M. et al. Clinical study comparing the accuracy of interocclusal records, digitally obtained by three different devices. Clin Oral Invest 26, 1957–1962 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04174-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04174-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation