The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning

Statement of problem. Evidence on the accuracy and reproducibility of the virtual interocclusal registration procedure and recommendations as to how to make a virtual interocclusal record are lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess whether virtual interocclusal registration records made at different locations around the arch affect the alignment of virtual casts, and to assess whether quadrant and complete arch scans have different effects on cast alignment when they are articulated with virtual interocclusal records. Material and methods. Three sites of close proximity (SCPs) and 3 sites of clearance (SCs) were identified in each sextant of mounted zirconia master models. The SCPs and SCs were confirmed by using shimstock foil and the transillumination of an interocclusal impression. Complete‐arch and quadrant scans of the master models were made with an intraoral scanner and registered with different virtual interocclusal registration records. The SCPs and SCs indicated by the scanner's software and by independent software were compared according to the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of each method. Results. Changed locations of SCPs were found depending on the location of the virtual interocclusal registration record. The intraoral scanner's software contacts had a higher sensitivity of 92.86% and a negative predictive value of 84.21% than the contacts revealed by the independent software that exhibited a sensitivity of 69.05% and a negative predictive value of 70.45%. However, the intraoral scanner software had a lower specificity of 41.03% and a positive predictive value of 62.90% compared with the independent software, which exhibited a specificity of 79.49% and a positive predictive value of 78.38%. The quadrant scans had a higher sensitivity than did the complete‐arch scans. Conclusions. Different occlusal contacts are obtained from interocclusal registration scans in different segments of the dental arch. The difference is more obvious in complete‐arch scans, where a tilting effect toward the site of the interocclusal registration scan was observed. Occlusal contacts obtained from interocclusal registration scans for quadrant scans had a higher sensitivity than did those for complete‐arch scans.

[1]  S. Davies,et al.  Reliability of recording static and dynamic occlusal contact marks using transparent acetate sheet. , 2005, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  G. Throckmorton,et al.  Masticatory performance and areas of occlusal contact and near contact in subjects with normal occlusion and malocclusion. , 2002, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[3]  E A BeGole,et al.  Occlusal contacts following orthodontic treatment: a follow-up study. , 1989, The Angle orthodontist.

[4]  Y Iwaki,et al.  Dimensional accuracy of optical bite registration in single and multiple unit restorations. , 2013, Operative dentistry.

[5]  Eneko Solaberrieta,et al.  Intraoral Digital Impressions for Virtual Occlusal Records: Section Quantity and Dimensions , 2016, BioMed research international.

[6]  James S Hodges,et al.  Comparing maximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental casts. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  G. Clark,et al.  Reliability, validity, and utility of various occlusal measurement methods and techniques. , 2000, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  Sebastian B. M. Patzelt,et al.  Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners , 2014, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[9]  G. Pradíes,et al.  Determining the requirements, section quantity, and dimension of the virtual occlusal record. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  Eneko Solaberrieta,et al.  Comparison of a conventional and virtual occlusal record. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  P Millstein,et al.  An evaluation of occlusal contact marking indicators. A descriptive quantitative method. , 2001, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[12]  E. Gazit,et al.  Occlusal contacts following orthodontic treatment. Measured by a photocclusion technique. , 1985, The Angle orthodontist.

[13]  C. Sadowsky,et al.  Changes in tooth contacts following orthodontic treatment. , 1986, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[14]  R DeLong,et al.  Accuracy of a System for Creating 3D Computer Models of Dental Arches , 2003, Journal of dental research.

[15]  Merve Bankoğlu Güngör,et al.  Comparison of Maximum Intercuspal Contacts of Articulated Casts and Virtual Casts Requiring Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures , 2017, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[16]  Stephanie E. Forrester,et al.  Occlusal measurement method can affect SEMG activity during occlusion. , 2011, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[17]  J. Hodges,et al.  Accuracy of contacts calculated from 3D images of occlusal surfaces. , 2007, Journal of dentistry.

[18]  R. DeLong,et al.  Digital imaging of occlusal contacts in the intercuspal position. , 1994, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[19]  Kevin W Eliceiri,et al.  NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis , 2012, Nature Methods.

[20]  A G Hannam,et al.  Simulation of dental collisions and occlusal dynamics in the virtual environment. , 2016, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[21]  Y. Igarashi,et al.  Tooth contacts at the mandibular retruded position, comparison of two different methods for bite registration. , 2002, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation.