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

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine
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":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信