Accuracy of Different Interocclusal Recording Methods

Hassan Ahmed  Alwan; Abdulkareem Ramadhan  Al-Mezouri; Manar Yahya  Nazhat

doi:10.56056/

Authors

Hassan Ahmed Alwan B.D.S., Kurdistan Higher Council for Medical Specialties, Duhok, Iraq
Abdulkareem Ramadhan Al-Mezouri PhD, Department of Conservative Dentistry, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq
Manar Yahya Nazhat PhD., Department of Prosthodontic, Tishik University, Erbil, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56056/

Keywords:

Dental Prosthesis, Dimethylpolysiloxanes, Jaw relation record, Vinyl Polysiloxane

Abstract

Background: In order to fabricate successful prostheses, it is necessary to reproduce the interocclusal relationship accurately and transfer it to the articulator. This study evaluates the accuracy of different bite registration methods by comparing them with a standard model.

Methods: In this in vitro comparative analysis which was done in Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq during 2023. Fully dentate upper and lower casts were mounted on an articulator. Different reference points were marked and the distances between upper and lower reference points with the occlusal plane angles were recorded using a measurement application. They were divided as anteroposterior left and right, buccolingual left and right, horizontal angles, and frontal angles. The lower second premolars and first molars were removed and the casts were duplicated and inter arch relations were transferred using dental wax, condensation silicone, additional silicone and the intra oral scanner. Each of the casts were specific to a single group with 10 samples each group. The measurements and angles were compared with the control group’s measurements.

Results: The dental wax and the a-silicone showed significant recordable differences in anteroposterior and buccolingual, right and left (P<0.05). The condensation silicone was significantly different in anteroposterior right and buccolingual right (P<0.05) while the intraoral scanner was significantly different in anteroposterior and frontal readings (P<0.05). All the rest of the results provided no significantly recordable changes or differences(P>0.05). The intraoral scanner showed the least mean difference while group A showed the most.

Conclusion: The results showed that all the mentioned methods had some discrepancies and differences. The intra oral scanner and the condensation silicone provided greater accuracy while the dental wax had the least.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Park DH, Park JM, Choi JW, Kang ES, Bae EB, Jeon YC et al. Accuracy of several implant bite registration techniques: an in-vitro pilot study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9(5): 341-9. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.341/

2. Fattore-Bruno L. Clinical Evaluation of the Accuracy of Interocclusal Recording Materials [Master’s thesis]. 1979;3026. Available from: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/3026/

3. Owen S, Reaney D, Newsome P. The clinical-laboratory interface: occlusal records. Int Dent (Afr ed). 2013; 2(4): 54-5.

4. Jamshidy L, Mozaffari HR, Faraji P, Sharifi R. Accuracy of the One-Stage and Two-Stage Impression Techniques: A Comparative Analysis. Int J Dent. 2016; 2016: 1-5.

5. Surapaneni H, Yalamanchili PS, Yalavarthy R, Attili S. Polyvinylsiloxanes in Dentistry: An Overview. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2013; 27: 115-23.

6. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P et al. Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017; 1-9.

7. Dowson P. Functional occlusion from TMJ to smile design. 1st ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2007.

8. Iwaki Y, Wakabayashi N, Igarashi Y. Dimensional Accuracy of Optical Bite Registration in Single and Multiple Unit Restorations. Oper Dent. 2012; 38(3):309-15.

9. Raju S, Nair VV, Karunakaran HK, Ravichandran R. Interocclusal recording materials and techniques: A litrature review. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2020; 6: 397-400.

10. Eser E, Agülo?lu S. Evaluation of the precision and reliability of different bite registration materials using conventional and digital articulator systems. Meandros Med Dent J. 2023; 24(4):280-5.

11. Dwivedi A, Maru K, Sharma A. A comparative evaluation of three dimensional accuracy of different types of interocclusal recording materials- an in vitro study. Med Pharma R. 2020; 93(3): 280-6.

12. El-Kouedi AY, Elsayed AO, Hamza T. Effect of different bite recording materials on mounting accuracy of working cast. Al-Azhar J Dent Sci. 2020; 23: 347-53.

13. Zarb G, Hobkirk JA, Eckert SE, Jacob RF. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients. 13th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2013.

14. Joshi P, Bhat GS, Shenoy V. Comparative evaluation of dimensional accuracy of addition silicone and condensation silicone impression materials - An in vitro study. J Nepal Dent. 2009; 10: 88-96.

15. McCabe JF, Walls A. Applied Dental Materials. 9th ed. Oxford: Blackwell publishing; 2008.

16. Sweeney S, Smith DK, Messersmith M. Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 148(2): 245-52.

17. Fraile, C., Ferreiroa, A., Romeo M, Alonso R, Pradies G. Clinical study comparing the accuracy of interocclusal records, digitally obtained by three different devices. Clin Oral Invest. 2022; 26(6): 4663–8.