BACKGROUND: The author addresses whether the face bow is irrelevant for all types of prosthetic work and for planning orthognathic surgery. METHODS: The author searched electronic databases to find studies whose investigators used the strongest clinical evidence (that is, randomized clinical trials) and studies whose investigators incorporated the use of cinefluorography. The author found 13 studies and 1 Internet video that provided strong evidence to support the irrelevancy of the face bow transfer. RESULTS: Evidence indicates that the face bow has nothing to do with speech, the fit and comfort of the prostheses, ridge morphology, facial contours, the color of the teeth and denture bases, the arrangement of the artificial teeth, chewing efficiency stability, and the psychological aspects of prosthodontic treatment. The cinefluorographic example showed that there was no condylar axis of rotation during functional activity, a sawing action of the mandibular incisors during the incising of toast and the mandible moving in a back and forth, rocking chair-like movement during functional activity. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating the face bow transfer reduces the patient's chair time and the dentist's overhead expenses. The author found evidence in the results of randomized controlled trials and an online video that justify eliminating the use and teaching of the 133-year-old technique known as the face bow transfer. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients expect their physicians and dentists to perform only treatment procedures that are essential. The findings of this study show that the face bow transfer treatment procedure is not absolutely necessary to mount dental models on an articulator. Students', professors', schools', patients', and taxpayers' time and money can be saved by no longer teaching this 133-year-old treatment procedure.
BACKGROUND: The author addresses whether the face bow is irrelevant for all types of prosthetic work and for planning orthognathic surgery. METHODS: The author searched electronic databases to find studies whose investigators used the strongest clinical evidence (that is, randomized clinical trials) and studies whose investigators incorporated the use of cinefluorography. The author found 13 studies and 1 Internet video that provided strong evidence to support the irrelevancy of the face bow transfer. RESULTS: Evidence indicates that the face bow has nothing to do with speech, the fit and comfort of the prostheses, ridge morphology, facial contours, the color of the teeth and denture bases, the arrangement of the artificial teeth, chewing efficiency stability, and the psychological aspects of prosthodontic treatment. The cinefluorographic example showed that there was no condylar axis of rotation during functional activity, a sawing action of the mandibular incisors during the incising of toast and the mandible moving in a back and forth, rocking chair-like movement during functional activity. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating the face bow transfer reduces the patient's chair time and the dentist's overhead expenses. The author found evidence in the results of randomized controlled trials and an online video that justify eliminating the use and teaching of the 133-year-old technique known as the face bow transfer. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients expect their physicians and dentists to perform only treatment procedures that are essential. The findings of this study show that the face bow transfer treatment procedure is not absolutely necessary to mount dental models on an articulator. Students', professors', schools', patients', and taxpayers' time and money can be saved by no longer teaching this 133-year-old treatment procedure.