Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The current study aims to evaluate the accuracy of different techniques used to record the centric relation.
The sample size was determined based on a previous study by Revilla-León et al. (2023), which indicated that 18 participants per group would provide sufficient power for statistical analysis. Eligible participants will be adults above 18 years of age with good oral health who are fully or partially dentate. Exclusion criteria include complete edentulism, absence of posterior stops, temporomandibular joint disorders, and limited mouth opening.
Centric relation (CR) will be recorded for all participants using three methods. In Group 1 (Conventional), a 2 mm Lucia jig fabricated from pattern resin (Dura-lay) will be positioned intraorally with the participant reclined at 45°. Polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) bite registration material will be injected bilaterally from the canines to first molars and allowed to set. Alginate impressions, facebow records, and subsequent mounting on a semi-adjustable articulator will be performed, and the casts will be digitized with a laboratory scanner. In Group 2 (Intraoral Scanner), the iTero Element scanner (Align Technology, San Jose, CA) will be used to capture maxillary and mandibular arches. The same Lucia jig will be placed intraorally, and the bite will be digitally captured using the PVS record. In Group 3 (Optical Jaw Tracking), the Modjaw system will be used with previously acquired iTero scans. The Lucia jig will again standardize mandibular position during CR registration. All recordings will be performed by a single experienced prosthodontist to ensure consistency.
For accuracy assessment, STL files from all recordings will be imported into Geomagic Control X (3D Systems). Six digital markers will be placed on maxillary and mandibular reference scans at standardized anatomical landmarks (buccal surfaces of first molars, canines, and central incisors). Thirty-six baseline inter-landmark distances will be calculated. Each experimental scan will then be aligned to the reference scan using a best-fit alignment protocol, with marker coordinates transferred from the reference scan to maintain consistency and avoid manual errors. Inter-landmark distances will be recalculated for each experimental scan. Accuracy will be assessed in terms of trueness (mean absolute deviation between reference and experimental measurements) and precision (consistency of distances within each group).
Data will be statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), with significance set at p < 0.05.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of Centric Relation Record (Control) | Experimental | Centric relation will be recorded using a conventional method with a 2 mm Kois deprogrammer and polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) bite registration. Alginate impressions and facebow records will be taken, mounted on a semi-adjustable articulator, and digitized with a laboratory scanner. |
|
| Accuracy of Centric Relation record IOS | Experimental | Centric relation will be recorded using an intraoral scanner. Maxillary and mandibular arches will be scanned, and the Kois deprogrammer with PVS registration will be used to digitally capture mandibular position |
|
| Accuracy of Centric Relation record ModJaw | Experimental | Centric relation will be recorded using the ModJaw optical jaw tracking system (4D jaw tracker). Previously acquired scans will be imported into ModJaw, and the kois deprogrammer will standardize mandibular position during registration |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Other | Control Group |
| |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of Centric Relation Recording (Trueness and Precision in millimeters) | Accuracy will be assessed by evaluating trueness and precision of centric relation (CR) records obtained with three techniques: conventional, intraoral scanner, and ModJaw optical jaw tracker. Trueness will be calculated as the mean absolute deviation (mm) between inter-landmark distances on reference STL scans and experimental scans using Geomagic Control X software. Precision will be measured as the standard deviation of repeated inter-landmark distances within each group. Data will be reported as mean ± SD values | Baseline (Day 5, immediately after centric relation recording). |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haitham Elbishari, BDS PhD | Contact | +971529131315 | haitham.elbishari@dubaihealth.ae |
Not provided
Not provided
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33888327 | Result | Ries JM, Grunler C, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Nov;128(5):994-1000. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.005. Epub 2021 Apr 19. | |
| 31860144 | Result | Revilla-Leon M, Subramanian SG, Ozcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner. J Prosthodont. 2020 Feb;29(2):107-113. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13135. Epub 2019 Dec 30. |
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| Related Info | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Intra Oral Scanner |
| Device |
Experimental group 1 |
|
| Mod Jaw | Device | 4 D Jaw Tracker |
|
| 28024822 | Result | Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jul;118(1):36-42. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024. Epub 2016 Dec 23. |