IADR Abstract Archives
Contacts Recorded With Articulating Paper and Digital Scanner - Prospective Study
Objectives: The collection and recording of the occlusal contacts are key steps of many dental procedures, nevertheless the lack of a standardized method for the right collection could cause clinical errors. The aim of this study was thus to compare the occlusal recording taken with articulating paper, and the one taken with an intraoral digital scanner. Moreover, because occlusal recording is ultimately a diagnostic and treatment tool, the secondary outcome was the rate of agreement among clinicians in subjectively evaluating the occlusal contacts using either articulating paper or digital impressions.
Methods: Twenty-eight records were analyzed for this study. Intraoral photos of the colored signs impressed by articulating paper and intraoral digital impressions were both taken at the same time point for every patient. Thanks to a standardized occlusal template, two experienced operators registed the number of occlusal contacts for every tooth provided by both the recording techniques. Then, eleven well-trained clinicians analyzed the collected records and answered to some questions about the quality of the occlusions observed.
Results: The statistical analysis showed statistically significant differences between the number of contacts reported by the photographed articulation marks and those reported by digital impressions, except for upper central incisors and first premolars. The Kappa Fleiss showed a slight and fair agreement between clinicians about the evaluated occlusions.
Conclusions: The evaluation of occlusal contacts in adult patients with a complete dentition was inconsistent between digital impressions and articulating paper, except for the upper left and right central incisors and the upper left and right first premolars. Overall, a higher number of occlusal contacts was measured on digital impressions, compared to articulating paper. Finally, the agreement between clinicians in the evaluation of both recorded methods was slight for the articulating paper and fair for digital impressions.
Methods: Twenty-eight records were analyzed for this study. Intraoral photos of the colored signs impressed by articulating paper and intraoral digital impressions were both taken at the same time point for every patient. Thanks to a standardized occlusal template, two experienced operators registed the number of occlusal contacts for every tooth provided by both the recording techniques. Then, eleven well-trained clinicians analyzed the collected records and answered to some questions about the quality of the occlusions observed.
Results: The statistical analysis showed statistically significant differences between the number of contacts reported by the photographed articulation marks and those reported by digital impressions, except for upper central incisors and first premolars. The Kappa Fleiss showed a slight and fair agreement between clinicians about the evaluated occlusions.
Conclusions: The evaluation of occlusal contacts in adult patients with a complete dentition was inconsistent between digital impressions and articulating paper, except for the upper left and right central incisors and the upper left and right first premolars. Overall, a higher number of occlusal contacts was measured on digital impressions, compared to articulating paper. Finally, the agreement between clinicians in the evaluation of both recorded methods was slight for the articulating paper and fair for digital impressions.