Evaluation of the accuracy of a fully digital method of measuring sagittal condylar inclination

doi:10.7518/hxkq.2024.2023242

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective This clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a fully digital technique for measuring sagittal condylar inclination (SCI), as well as validating whether differences existed between the left and right SCI values of the same participant, to provide a reference for clinical practice. Methods Ten participants with good occlusal relationship and normal temporomandibular joint were recruited. Three methods were used to measure the SCI values of the participants, namely, A (mechanical facebow transferring and mechanical articulator-based measuring method with physical protrusive interocclusal registration), B (face scan-based virtual facebow and virtual articulator-based measuring method with digital protrusive interocclusal registration), and C (jaw motion tracking system-based measuring method). With the group subjected to methods A and C as the control, the SCI values obtained by the three methods were statistically analyzed. The left and right SCI values of the same participant were also compared. Results The left and right SCI values measured by method A were 41.70°±7.09° and 42.80°±8.62°, those by method B were 35.09°±12.49° and 37.63°±12.10°, and those by method C were 39.43°±8.72° and 38.45°±6.91°. No significant difference existed among the SCI values measured by the three methods (P>0.05). Meanwhile, no statistical difference existed between the SCI values on the left and right sides of the same participant (P>0.05). Conclusion The accuracy of the virtual facebow and digital protrusive occlusal registration based SCI measuring method was the same as that of mechanical facebow based and jaw motion tracking system-based methods. The SCI values on the left and right sides of the same participant were similar. Clinically, an appropriate SCI measurement and setting strategy can be selected based on the actual situations.

Key words: sagittal condylar inclination, virtual facebow, virtual articulator, face scan, jaw motion tracking system

CLC Number:

R783

Zhou Zheqing, Wang Siyu, Yuan Quan, Yue Li, Yang Shengtao. Evaluation of the accuracy of a fully digital method of measuring sagittal condylar inclination[J]. West China Journal of Stomatology, 2024, 42(1): 67-74.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Tab 1

Fig 4

Tab 2

References 31

1	Reicheneder C, Gedrange T, Baumert U, et al. Variations in the inclination of the condylar path in children and adults[J]. Angle Orthod, 2009, 79(5): 958-963.
2	The glossary of prosthodontic terms: ninth edition[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2017, 117(5S): e1-e105.
3	Cimić S, Simunković SK, Suncana Simonić K, et al. Articulator-related registration and analysis of sagittal condylar inclination[J]. Acta Clin Croat, 2015, 54(4): 432-437.
4	Koralakunte PR, Aljanakh M. The role of virtual articulator in prosthetic and restorative dentistry[J]. J Clin Diagn Res, 2014, 8(7): ZE25-ZE28.
5	Lepidi L, Chen Z, Ravida A, et al. A full-digital technique to mount a maxillary arch scan on a virtual articulator[J]. J Prosthodont, 2019, 28(3): 335-338.
6	Farias-Neto A, Dias AH, de Miranda BF, et al. Face-bow transfer in prosthodontics: a systematic review of the li-terature[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2013, 40(9): 686-692.
7	Lepidi L, Galli M, Mastrangelo F, et al. Virtual articulators and virtual mounting procedures: where do we stand[J]. J Prosthodont, 2021, 30(1): 24-35.
8	Ahangari AH, Torabi K, Pour SR, et al. Evaluation of the Cadiax Compact^® Ⅱ accuracy in recording preadjusted condylar inclinations on fully adjustable articulator[J]. J Contemp Dent Pract, 2012, 13(4): 504-508.
9	Lam WYH, Hsung RTC, Choi WWS, et al. A clinical technique for virtual articulator mounting with natural head position by using calibrated stereophotogrammetry[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018, 119(6): 902-908.
10	Hong SJ, Choi Y, Park M, et al. Setting the sagittal condylar inclination on a virtual articulator using intraoral scan of protrusive interocclusal position and cone beam computed tomography[J]. J Prosthodont, 2020, 29(2): 185-189.
11	Solaberrieta E, Mínguez R, Barrenetxea L, et al. Direct transfer of the position of digitized casts to a virtual articulator[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2013, 109(6): 411-414.
12	Yang S, Feng N, Li D, et al. A novel technique to align the intraoral scans to the virtual articulator and set the patient-specific sagittal condylar inclination[J]. J Pros-thodont, 2022, 31(1): 79-84.
13	Inoue N, Scialabba R, Lee JD, et al. A comparison of virtually mounted dental casts from traditional facebow records, average values, and 3D facial scans[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2022, S0022-3913(22)00146-9.
14	Tannamala PK, Pulagam M, Pottem SR, et al. Condylar guidance: correlation between protrusive interocclusal record and panoramic radiographic image: a pilot study[J]. J Prosthodont, 2012, 21(3): 181-184.
15	dos Santos J Jr, Nelson S, Nowlin T. Comparison of condylar guidance setting obtained from a wax record versus an extraoral tracing: a pilot study[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2003, 89(1): 54-59.
16	王美青. （牙合）学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2020.
	Wang MQ. Gnathology[M]. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2020.
17	Christensen C. The problem of the bite[J]. Dent Cosmos, 1905, 47: 1184-1195.
18	Naqash TA, Chaturvedi S, Yaqoob A, et al. Evaluation of sagittal condylar guidance angles using computerized pantographic tracings, protrusive interocclusal records, and 3D-CBCT imaging techniques for oral rehabilitation[J]. Niger J Clin Pract, 2020, 23(4): 550-554.
19	Hangai K, Aridome K, Wang CH, et al. Clinical evaluation of semi-adjustable articulators: reproducibility of sa-gittal condylar path inclination assessed by a jaw-trac-king system with six degrees of freedom[J]. Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi, 2008, 52(3): 360-365.
20	Donegan SJ, Christensen LV. Sagittal condylar guidance as determined by protrusion records and wear facets of teeth[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 1991, 4(5): 469-472.
21	Yang S, Dong B, Zhang Q, et al. An indirect digital technique to transfer 3D printed casts to a mechanical articulator with individual sagittal condylar inclination settings using cbct and intraoral scans[J]. J Prosthodont, 2022, 31(9): 822-827.
22	Craddock FW. The accuracy and practical value of records of condyle path inclination[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 1949, 38(6): 697-710.
23	Millstein PL, Kronman JH, Clark RE. Determination of the accuracy of wax interocclusal registrations[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 1971, 25(3): 189-196.
24	Gross M, Nemcovsky C, Tabibian Y, et al. The effect of three different recording materials on the reproducibility of condylar guidance registrations in three semi-adjusta-ble articulators[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 1998, 25(3): 204-208.
25	Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, et al. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2015, 114(3): 403-406.e1.
26	Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: a literature review[J]. J Prosthodont Res, 2020, 64(2): 109-113.
27	Ma L, Liu F, Mei J, et al. A comparative study to measure the sagittal condylar inclination using mechanical articulator, virtual articulator and jaw tracking device[J]. J Adv Prosthodont, 2023, 15(1): 11-21.
28	Vitai V, Németh A, Sólyom E, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: a systematic review and network meta-analysis[J]. J Dent, 2023, 137: 104636.
29	O’Toole S, Bartlett D, Keeling A, et al. Influence of scanner precision and analysis software in quantifying three-dimensional intraoral changes: two-factor factorial experimental design[J]. J Med Internet Res, 2020, 22(11): e17150.
30	Dragus AC, Mihai A, Tanase G, et al. Intraindividual left-right side differences of sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) in different skeletal classes[J]. Healthcare (Basel), 2023, 11(9): 1341.
31	Das A, Muddugangadhar BC, Mawani DP, et al. Comparative evaluation of sagittal condylar guidance obtained from a clinical method and with cone beam computed tomography in dentate individuals[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2021, 125(5): 753-757.

序号	性别	方法A		方法B		方法C
序号	性别	左侧	右侧	左侧	右侧	左侧	右侧
平均值±标准差		41.70±7.09	42.80±8.62	35.09±12.49	37.63±12.10	39.43±8.72	38.45±6.91
1	男	26.0	26.0	46.7	39.8	43.5	37.5
2	男	45.0	50.0	56.0	60.0	38.6	43.0
3	女	34.0	34.0	32.6	30.2	19.1	24.2
4	男	50.0	57.0	40.6	42.6	50.7	50.3
5	女	43.0	40.0	10.4	23.8	49.2	41.2
6	男	41.0	47.0	39.8	49.5	41.0	41.3
7	女	40.0	47.0	27.0	22.2	38.4	40.7
8	男	48.0	42.0	39.8	44.6	34.2	32.3
9	男	45.0	45.0	30.2	36.6	40.3	36.1
10	女	45.0	40.0	27.8	27.0	39.3	37.9

变异来源		SS	df	MS	F值	P值
左侧	组间变异	225.6	2	112.80	1.198 0	0.317 3
	组内变异	2 542.0	27	94.14
	总变异	2 767.0	29
右侧	组间变异	154.4	2	77.21	0.862 5	0.433 4
	组内变异	2 417.0	27	89.52
	总变异	2 571.0	29