Insights into Occlusal Analysis: Articulating Paper Versus Digital Devices

Overview

Journal J Clin Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Aug 10

PMID 39124772

Authors

Manuela-Maria Manziuc

Mara Mihaela Savu

Oana Almasan

Daniel-Corneliu Leucuta

Manuela Taut

Cosmin Ifrim

Denisa Berindean

Andreea Kui

Marius Negucioiu

Smaranda Buduru

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

As the demand for digital dentistry constantly increases, digital devices are gradually replacing conventional methods of recording occlusal contacts. The study aimed to assess the inter-rater reliability of occlusal contact point detection using 40 μm articulating paper, Medit i700, and OccluSense and to compare the distribution of occlusal contacts using the articulating paper and intraoral scanner. The study included 25 participants aged 20 to 30 (13 women and 12 men). Photographs of contact points were taken and marked in maximum intercuspal position (MIP), in protrusive and laterotrusive movements, on working and non-working sides using 40 μm articulating paper and digital devices. The Cohen's Kappa coefficient assessed the inter-rater reliability. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare dependent groups, articulating paper, and Medit i700. The Cohen's Kappa index showed that almost perfect agreement was achieved with 40 μm articulating paper. Compared to Medit i700, the 40 μm articulating paper showed an increased mean number of contacts per tooth, except for the third molars. : The 40 μm articulating paper has detected more overall contacts than the digital devices, particularly in the posterior areas. An ideal method for registering occlusal contacts has not been established yet.

References

Sharma A, Rahul G, Poduval S, Shetty K, Gupta B, Rajora V . History of materials used for recording static and dynamic occlusal contact marks: a literature review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014; 5(1):e48-53. PMC: 3892230. DOI: 10.4317/jced.50680. View

Kerstein R . Articulating paper mark misconceptions and computerized occlusal analysis technology. Dent Implantol Update. 2008; 19(6):41-6. View

Cicciu M, Fiorillo L, DAmico C, Gambino D, Amantia E, Laino L . 3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(8). PMC: 7215909. DOI: 10.3390/ma13081982. View

Revilla-Leon M, Kois D, Kois J . A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2-Patient factors. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023; 35(1):241-249. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12993. View

DeLong R, Ko C, Anderson G, Hodges J, Douglas W . Comparing maximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88(6):622-30. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.129379. View

Davies S, Gray R, Al-Ani M, Sloan P, Worthington H . Inter- and intra-operator reliability of the recording of occlusal contacts using 'occlusal sketch' acetate technique. Br Dent J. 2002; 193(7):397-400. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801575. View

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 Investig. 2021; 26(2):1957-1962. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04174-2. View

Suese K . Progress in digital dentistry: The practical use of intraoral scanners. Dent Mater J. 2019; 39(1):52-56. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2019-224. View

Solaberrieta E, Otegi J, Goicoechea N, Brizuela A, Pradies G . Comparison of a conventional and virtual occlusal record. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114(1):92-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.01.009. View

10.

Popa A, Vladutu D, Turcu A, Tartea D, Ionescu M, Paunescu C . Aspects of Occlusal Recordings Performed with the T-Scan System and with the Medit Intraoral Scanner. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(13). PMC: 11241177. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14131457. View

11.

Malta Barbosa J, Urtula A, Hirata R, Carames J . Thickness evaluation of articulating papers and foils. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017; 30(1):70-72. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12343. View

12.

Shadid R, Sadaqah N . Accuracy of Virtual Static Articulation: A Systematic Review. Int J Prosthodont. 2022; 35(5):627–646. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.7407. View

13.

Wiskott H, Belser U . A rationale for a simplified occlusal design in restorative dentistry: historical review and clinical guidelines. J Prosthet Dent. 1995; 73(2):169-83. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80159-3. View

14.

Gintaute A, Keeling A, Osnes C, Zitzmann N, Ferrari M, Joda T . Precision of maxillo-mandibular registration with intraoral scanners in vitro. J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 64(2):114-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.05.006. View

15.

Cohen J . A power primer. Psychol Bull. 2009; 112(1):155-9. DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155. View

16.

Revilla-Leon M, Gomez-Polo M, Zeitler J, Barmak A, Kois J, Alonso Perez-Barquero J . Does the available interocclusal space influence the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured with an intraoral scanner?. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 132(2):435-440. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.09.004. View

17.

Arslan Y, Bankoglu Gungor M, Karakoca Nemli S, Kokdogan Boyaci B, Aydin C . Comparison of Maximum Intercuspal Contacts of Articulated Casts and Virtual Casts Requiring Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures. J Prosthodont. 2016; 26(7):594-598. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12439. View

18.

Patzelt S, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W . The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145(6):542-51. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2014.23. View

19.

Sutter B . A digital poll of dentists testing the accuracy of paper mark subjective interpretation. Cranio. 2017; 36(6):396-403. DOI: 10.1080/08869634.2017.1362786. View

20.

Millstein P, Maya A . An evaluation of occlusal contact marking indicators. A descriptive quantitative method. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132(9):1280-6; quiz 1319. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0373. View