Linear Dimensional Accuracy in Maxillomandibular Records: A Comparative Study of Scannable and Transparent Materials.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine Medical Science Monitor Pub Date : 2025-02-22 DOI:10.12659/MSM.947265
Mohammed E Sayed, Bandar M A Al-Makramani, Praveen Gangadharappa, Mohammed M Al Moaleem, Loay E Najmi, Faisal A A Daghreeri, Rayan A Nahari, Mohammad Alamri, Nisreen Nabiel Hassan, Mai Almarzouki, Saad Saleh AlResayes, Ahid Amer Alshahrani, Saeed M Alqahtani, Khurshid Mattoo
{"title":"Linear Dimensional Accuracy in Maxillomandibular Records: A Comparative Study of Scannable and Transparent Materials.","authors":"Mohammed E Sayed, Bandar M A Al-Makramani, Praveen Gangadharappa, Mohammed M Al Moaleem, Loay E Najmi, Faisal A A Daghreeri, Rayan A Nahari, Mohammad Alamri, Nisreen Nabiel Hassan, Mai Almarzouki, Saad Saleh AlResayes, Ahid Amer Alshahrani, Saeed M Alqahtani, Khurshid Mattoo","doi":"10.12659/MSM.947265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND Maxillomandibular relationship records facilitate patient stomatognathic information transfer to dental laboratories, but new bite registration materials (BRMs) lack scientific evidence on linear dimensional accuracy. This in vitro investigation compared linear dimensional accuracy of 6 commercial scannable and transparent BRMs with a typical BRM at 1 h. MATERIAL AND METHODS Seven American Dental Association (ADA)-approved BRMs were categorized into 1 control and 2 experimental groups: control: Occlufast Rock; scannable group: Occlufast CAD, Virtual CADBite, and Flexitime Bite; and transparent group: Maxill Bite, Charmflex Bite, and Defend ClearBite. The study used modified ADA specification no. 19 to standardize bite registration record samples, which were examined using a stereomicroscope to compare with control group and standard die measurements. Median, interquartile range, and median rank scores were used for statistical interpretation. One-way ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis rank test) and multiple-comparison Dunn test with Bonferroni correction compared between and within group differences at the probability P value ≤0.05. RESULTS The median linear differences varied in scannable, -0.06 (0.24%) to -0.11mm (0.44%), and transparent, -0.06 (0.24%) to -0.07 (0.28%), BRMs, with transparent BRMs showing more linear accuracy than scannable BRMs. A statistically significant difference from control at 1 h was observed for 3 different commercial brands. All transparent BRMs exhibited markedly reduced linear discrepancies, compared with the standard BRM (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS All BRMs at 1 h showed a reduced linear dimensions, indicating shrinkage. All investigated BRMs demonstrated clinically acceptable linear discrepancies, with transparent BRMs exhibiting less change than scannable BRMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":48888,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Monitor","volume":"31 ","pages":"e947265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11863494/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Monitor","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.947265","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Maxillomandibular relationship records facilitate patient stomatognathic information transfer to dental laboratories, but new bite registration materials (BRMs) lack scientific evidence on linear dimensional accuracy. This in vitro investigation compared linear dimensional accuracy of 6 commercial scannable and transparent BRMs with a typical BRM at 1 h. MATERIAL AND METHODS Seven American Dental Association (ADA)-approved BRMs were categorized into 1 control and 2 experimental groups: control: Occlufast Rock; scannable group: Occlufast CAD, Virtual CADBite, and Flexitime Bite; and transparent group: Maxill Bite, Charmflex Bite, and Defend ClearBite. The study used modified ADA specification no. 19 to standardize bite registration record samples, which were examined using a stereomicroscope to compare with control group and standard die measurements. Median, interquartile range, and median rank scores were used for statistical interpretation. One-way ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis rank test) and multiple-comparison Dunn test with Bonferroni correction compared between and within group differences at the probability P value ≤0.05. RESULTS The median linear differences varied in scannable, -0.06 (0.24%) to -0.11mm (0.44%), and transparent, -0.06 (0.24%) to -0.07 (0.28%), BRMs, with transparent BRMs showing more linear accuracy than scannable BRMs. A statistically significant difference from control at 1 h was observed for 3 different commercial brands. All transparent BRMs exhibited markedly reduced linear discrepancies, compared with the standard BRM (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS All BRMs at 1 h showed a reduced linear dimensions, indicating shrinkage. All investigated BRMs demonstrated clinically acceptable linear discrepancies, with transparent BRMs exhibiting less change than scannable BRMs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
上颌骨记录的线性尺寸精度:可扫描和透明材料的比较研究。
背景上颌下颌关系记录有助于将患者的口颌信息传递到牙科实验室,但新的咬合登记材料(BRMs)缺乏线性尺寸准确性的科学证据。该体外研究比较了6个商业可扫描透明BRM与典型BRM在1小时的线性尺寸精度。材料和方法7个美国牙科协会(ADA)批准的BRM分为1个对照组和2个实验组:对照组:Occlufast Rock;可扫描组:Occlufast CAD、Virtual CADBite、Flexitime Bite;透明组:Maxill Bite, Charmflex Bite和Defend ClearBite。本研究采用修改后的ADA规范编号。19标准化咬合记录样品,使用体视显微镜检查与对照组和标准模具测量进行比较。中位数、四分位数范围和中位数等级分数用于统计解释。单因素方差分析(Kruskal-Wallis秩检验)和Bonferroni校正的多重比较Dunn检验比较组间和组内差异的概率P值≤0.05。结果可扫描brm的线性中位数差异为-0.06 (0.24%)~ -0.11mm(0.44%),透明brm的线性中位数差异为-0.06(0.24%)~ -0.07(0.28%),透明brm的线性精度高于可扫描brm。3个不同的商业品牌在1小时与对照组相比有统计学显著差异。与标准BRM相比,所有透明BRM均表现出明显减少的线性差异(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Science Monitor
Medical Science Monitor MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
514
审稿时长
3.0 months
期刊介绍: Medical Science Monitor (MSM) established in 1995 is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal which publishes original articles in Clinical Medicine and related disciplines such as Epidemiology and Population Studies, Product Investigations, Development of Laboratory Techniques :: Diagnostics and Medical Technology which enable presentation of research or review works in overlapping areas of medicine and technology such us (but not limited to): medical diagnostics, medical imaging systems, computer simulation of health and disease processes, new medical devices, etc. Reviews and Special Reports - papers may be accepted on the basis that they provide a systematic, critical and up-to-date overview of literature pertaining to research or clinical topics. Meta-analyses are considered as reviews. A special attention will be paid to a teaching value of a review paper. Medical Science Monitor is internationally indexed in Thomson-Reuters Web of Science, Journals Citation Report (JCR), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI), Index Medicus MEDLINE, PubMed, PMC, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Chemical Abstracts CAS and Index Copernicus.
期刊最新文献
Development and Validation of a Predictive Model Combining [18F] FDG PET/CT and the Suidan Score for Primary Optimal Cytoreduction in Advanced High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Social Attitudes Towards Public Health Interventions in Community Pharmacies in Poland: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey. Outcomes at 1 Year After Total Hip Arthroplasty Combined With Low Femoral Neck Osteotomy vs Subtrochanteric Osteotomy in 73 Patients With Crowe Type IV Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Retrospective Study. Anoikis-Related Genes Signature Contributes to Predicting Prognosis and Response to Immunotherapy in Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Effects of Clinical Pharmacist-Led Medication Management on Medication Adherence and Quality of Life in Stroke Patients Undergoing Intravenous Thrombolysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1