PURPOSE: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate if an arbitrary facebow registration and transfer provides significant advantages for the fabrication of an occlusal appliance in comparison with the omission of such a procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 20 fully dentate adult patients diagnosed with bruxism, two Michigan occlusal splints were constructed. One of the two upper dental casts was transferred to the articulator with an arbitrary earpiece facebow; the other maxillary cast was mounted arbitrarily using a flat occlusal plane indicator. Upon splint delivery, the number of intraoral occlusal contacts and the time needed for chairside occlusal adjustment were recorded. RESULTS: The number of occlusal contacts on the appliance fabricated with or without facebow was similar in most cases both in the articulator and in the mouth. The one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test showed with high probability that the use of an arbitrary facebow does not yield a clinically relevant improvement with regard to the number of occlusal contacts or the chairside adjustment time. CONCLUSION: From this pilot study, it appears that for the fabrication of an occlusal appliance, registration and transfer with an arbitrary earpiece facebow does not yield clinically relevant benefits. Of course, this conclusion cannot be transferred to other facebows and is restricted to the levels of clinical relevance defined in the study.
PURPOSE: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate if an arbitrary facebow registration and transfer provides significant advantages for the fabrication of an occlusal appliance in comparison with the omission of such a procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 20 fully dentate adult patients diagnosed with bruxism, two Michigan occlusal splints were constructed. One of the two upper dental casts was transferred to the articulator with an arbitrary earpiece facebow; the other maxillary cast was mounted arbitrarily using a flat occlusal plane indicator. Upon splint delivery, the number of intraoral occlusal contacts and the time needed for chairside occlusal adjustment were recorded. RESULTS: The number of occlusal contacts on the appliance fabricated with or without facebow was similar in most cases both in the articulator and in the mouth. The one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test showed with high probability that the use of an arbitrary facebow does not yield a clinically relevant improvement with regard to the number of occlusal contacts or the chairside adjustment time. CONCLUSION: From this pilot study, it appears that for the fabrication of an occlusal appliance, registration and transfer with an arbitrary earpiece facebow does not yield clinically relevant benefits. Of course, this conclusion cannot be transferred to other facebows and is restricted to the levels of clinical relevance defined in the study.
Authors: Manja von Stein-Lausnitz; Steffen Schmid; Felix H Blankenstein; Ingrid Peroz; Florian Beuer; Guido Sterzenbach Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Manja von Stein-Lausnitz; Guido Sterzenbach; Iven Helm; Antje Zorn; Felix H Blankenstein; Sebastian Ruge; Bernd Kordaß; Florian Beuer; Ingrid Peroz Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 3.573