Accuracy of Intraoral Scanner for Centric Relation Record in Comparison to Vinyl Polysiloxane
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Centric relation (CR) is a maxillomandibular position used in dental procedures. Conventional CR bite registration may be inaccurate due to material limitations, such as dimensional changes. Intraoral scanners (IOS) offer a modern alternative, minimizing these limitations and improving patient comfort. However, few studies have evaluated the accuracy of IOS for CR recording. Objective: To compare the accuracy of digital CR recordings from an IOS with conventional CR bite registration through quantitative occlusal contact analysis. Materials and methods: Twenty-nine healthy individuals participated. CR was recorded using bimanual manipulation with silicone bite indexes (Silagum-Putty; DMG, Germany). Conventional CR bite records were obtained using vinyl polysiloxane (O-Bite; DMG, Germany). IOS scans (iTero Element 2; Align Technologies, USA) recorded CR using the silicone bite index. Recordings were repeated over two visits. CR first contact and sites of close proximity (SCP) were identif ied. McNemar’s test assessed trueness, and Cohen’s kappa evaluated repeatability. Results: Significant differences in trueness were found between conventional and iTero scans for CR first contact (P < 0.001) and SCP detection (P < 0.001 in the first visit and P = 0.027 in the second visit). Repeatability was comparable for conventional methods (kappa = 0.860 for CR first contact and 0.880 for SCP) and iTero scans (kappa = 0.707 for CR first contact and 0.865 for SCP). Conclusion: While repeatability of both methods showed similar acceptable agreement, the trueness of identifying CR first contact and SCP was better in conventional bite registration.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
The glossary of prosthodontic terms 2023:10th ed. J Prosthet Dent 2023;130(4 Suppl 1):e1-3.
Goldstein GR. Centric relation: a needed reference position. J Prosthodont 2023;32(6):482-8.
Becker CM, Kaiser DA, Schwalm C. Mandibular centricity: centric relation. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(2):158-60.
Galeković NH, Fugošić V, Braut V, Ćelić R. Reproducibility of centric relation techniques by means of condyle position analysis. Acta Stomatol Croat 2017;51(1):13-21.
The glossary of prosthodontic terms: 9th ed. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(5s):e1-105.
Wasinwasukul P, Thongudomporn U, Promsawat M. Comparison of masticatory muscle effort when chewing on an anterior bite plane fabricated from hard and soft materials. Thai J Orthod 2024;14(2):17-27.
Kattadiyil MT, Alzaid AA, Campbell SD. What materials and reproducible techniques may be used in recording centric relation? best evidence consensus statement. J Prosthodont 2021;30(S1):34-42.
Anup G, Ahila SC, VasanthaKumar M. Evaluation of dimensional stability, accuracy and surface hardness of interocclusal recording materials at various time intervals: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011;11(1):26-31.
Keshvad A, Winstanley RB. Comparison of the replicability of routinely used centric relation registration techniques. J Prosthodont 2003;12(2):90-101.
Kantor ME, Silverman SI, Garf inkel L. Centric-relation recording techniques—a comparative investigation. J Prosthet Dent 1972;28(6):593-600.
de Moraes Melo Neto CL, Dos Santos DM, de Magalhães Bertoz AP, Moreno ALM, Goiato MC. Comparison of techniques for obtaining centric relation based on the reproducibility of the condylar positions in centric relation-a systematic review. Eur J Dent 2022;16(2):251-7.
Tejo SK, Kumar AG, Kattimani VS, Desai PD, Nalla S, Chaitanya KK. A comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of three types of interocclusal recording materialsan in-vitro multi-centre study. Head Face Med 2012;8:27.
Wong KY, Esguerra RJ, Chia VAP, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Threedimensional accuracy of digital static interocclusal registration by three intraoral scanner systems. J Prosthodont 2018;27(2):120-8.
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 Pharm Rep 2020;93(3):280-6.
Radu M, Radu D, Abboud M. Digital recording of a conventionally determined centric relation: a technique using an intraoral scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(2):228-31.
Camcı H, Salmanpour F. A new technique for testing accuracy and sensitivity of digital bite registration: a prospective comparative study. Int Orthod 2021;19(3):425-32.
Fraile C, Ferreiroa A, Romeo Rubio M, Alonso R, Pradíes Ramiro G. Clinical study comparing the accuracy of interocclusal records, digitally obtained by three different devices. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26(6):4663-8.
Jeamkatanyoo L, Suntornlohanakul S, Tianviwat S. Factors influencing orthodontic patient compliance with removable retainers. Thai J Orthod 2024;14(2):36-44.
Ruankaeo K, Suntornlohanakul S. Factors affecting patient satisfaction in orthodontic treatment. Thai J Orthod 2023;13(1):44-51.
DeLong R, Knorr S, Anderson GC, Hodges J, Pintado MR. Accuracy of contacts calculated from 3D images of occlusal surfaces. J Dent 2007;35(6):528-34.
Shadid R, Sadaqah N. Accuracy of virtual static articulation: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2022;35(5):627–46.
Revilla-León M, Agustín-Panadero R, Zeitler JM, Barmak AB, Yilmaz B, Kois JC, et al. Differences in maxillomandibular relationship recorded at centric relation when using a conventional method, four intraoral scanners, and a jaw tracking system: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2023.
Ngamjarus C, Chongsuvivatwong V, McNeil E. n4Studies: Sample size calculation for an epidemiological study on a smart device. Siriraj Med J 2016;68:160-70.
Abdulateef S, Edher F, Hannam AG, Tobias DL, Wyatt CCL. Clinical accuracy and reproducibility of virtual interocclusal records. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124(6):667-73.
Nalamliang N, Sumonsiri P, Thongudomporn U. Are occlusal contact area asymmetry and masticatory muscle activity asymmetry related in adults with normal dentition? CRANIO® 2022;40(5):409-17.
McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22(3):276-82.
Botsford KP, Frazier MC, Ghoneima AAM, Utreja A, Bhamidipalli SS, Stewart KT. Precision of the virtual occlusal record. Angle Orthod 2019;89(5):751-7.
Iwauchi Y, Tanaka S, Kamimura-Sugimura E, Baba K. Clinical evaluation of the precision of interocclusal registration by using digital and conventional techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128(4):611-7.
Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144(3):471-8.
