Cristina Fraile1, Alberto Ferreiroa1, Marta Romeo2, Raquel Alonso1, Guillermo Pradíes1. 1. Department of Conservative and Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040, Madrid, Spain. 2. Department of Conservative and Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040, Madrid, Spain. mromeo@ucm.es.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present cross-sectional study was to compare the interocclusal contact records obtained by three different digital methods (intra- and extraoral digital scanners and T-Scan III system) with the conventional method (articulating paper). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five healthy volunteers were selected. As a control group, maximum intercuspation occlusal contacts were registered and photographed from the patients with an 8 µm articulating paper. Then, intraoral conventional elastomer impressions were taken and after obtaining the corresponding plaster models of every patient they were scanned with an extraoral scanner (Zfx Evolution, Zimmer Biomet Dental) (group 1). Moreover, digital impressions were made with an intraoral scanner (Trios Color POD, Phibo, 3Shape) and contacts were also registered (group 2). Finally, T-Scan III records were made and stored for further analysis (group 3). Two previously calibrated examiners independently evaluated the interocclusal contacts from every group. Data was analyzed by using Kappa index test and Pearson's chi-square test. Diagnostic tests and ROC curve were also performed. RESULTS: Kappa interoperator index was 70.6% (better agreement). In Kappa intraoperator index, the best value was obtained in the intraoral scanner group (moderate agreement) and the worst with T-Scan III group (low agreement). ROC curve showed highest values in the intraoral scanner group (0.817) and lowest values in the T-Scan III group (0.613). CONCLUSION: Results suggest greater reliability to record occlusal contacts with the intraoral scanner. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoral scanners seem to be reliable in registering intermaxillary occlusal contacts when compared with the current gold standard.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present cross-sectional study was to compare the interocclusal contact records obtained by three different digital methods (intra- and extraoral digital scanners and T-Scan III system) with the conventional method (articulating paper). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five healthy volunteers were selected. As a control group, maximum intercuspation occlusal contacts were registered and photographed from the patients with an 8 µm articulating paper. Then, intraoral conventional elastomer impressions were taken and after obtaining the corresponding plaster models of every patient they were scanned with an extraoral scanner (Zfx Evolution, Zimmer Biomet Dental) (group 1). Moreover, digital impressions were made with an intraoral scanner (Trios Color POD, Phibo, 3Shape) and contacts were also registered (group 2). Finally, T-Scan III records were made and stored for further analysis (group 3). Two previously calibrated examiners independently evaluated the interocclusal contacts from every group. Data was analyzed by using Kappa index test and Pearson's chi-square test. Diagnostic tests and ROC curve were also performed. RESULTS: Kappa interoperator index was 70.6% (better agreement). In Kappa intraoperator index, the best value was obtained in the intraoral scanner group (moderate agreement) and the worst with T-Scan III group (low agreement). ROC curve showed highest values in the intraoral scanner group (0.817) and lowest values in the T-Scan III group (0.613). CONCLUSION: Results suggest greater reliability to record occlusal contacts with the intraoral scanner. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoral scanners seem to be reliable in registering intermaxillary occlusal contacts when compared with the current gold standard.