Reliability of a facebow transfer procedure

Accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator by using analog and digital facebow record methods

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Different digital methods have been described for transferring the maxillary cast into a virtual articulator; however, its accuracy remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator by using analog and digital methods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary typodont with 5 markers was positioned into a mannequin, which was digitized by using an industrial scanner (ATOS Q) and an extraoral scan of the typodont obtained (T710). Three groups were created based on the technique used to transfer the maxillary cast into the virtual articulator (Panadent PCH Articulator): conventional facebow record (CNV group), digital photograph (P group), and facial scanning (FS group) (n=10). In the CNV group, conventional facebow records (Kois Dentofacial analyzer system) were digitized (T710) and used to mount the maxillary scan into the articulator by aligning it with the reference platform (Kois adjustable platform) (DentalCAD). In the P group, photographs with the reference glasses (Kois Reference Glasses 3.0) were positioned in the mannequin. Each photograph was superimposed with the maxillary scan. Then, the maxillary scan was transferred into the virtual articulator by using the true horizontal plane information of the photograph. In the FS group, facial scans with an extraoral scan body (Kois Scan Body) were positioned in the mannequin by using a facial scanner (Instarisa). The extraoral scan body was digitized by using the same extraoral scanner. The digitized extraoral scan body provided the true horizontal plane information that was used to mount the maxillary scan into the articulator, along with the Kois disposable tray of the scan body. On the reference scan and each specimen, 15 linear measurements between the markers of the maxillary scans and the horizontal plane of the virtual articulator and 3 linear measurements between the maxillary dental midline and articulator midline were calculated. The measurements of the reference scan were used as a control to assess trueness and precision. Trueness was analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA followed by the pairwise comparison Tukey tests (α=.05). Precision was evaluated by using the Levene and pairwise comparisons Wilcoxon Rank sum tests.

RESULTS

No significant trueness (P=.996) or precision (P=.430) midline discrepancies were found. Significant posterior right (P<.001), anterior (P=.005), posterior left (P<.001), and overall (P<.001) trueness discrepancies were revealed among the groups. The P group obtained the best posterior right, posterior left, and overall trueness and precision. The P and FS groups demonstrated the best anterior trueness, but no anterior precision discrepancies were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The techniques tested affected the accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator. In the majority of the parameters assessed, the photography method tested showed the best trueness and precision values. However, the maxillary cast transfer accuracy ranged from 137 ±44 µm to 453 ±176 µm among the techniques tested.

Accuracy comparison of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator between an analog facebow record and a digital photography technique

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital photographs can be used for transferring the maxillary cast into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator; however, its accuracy remains unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer into the virtual semi-adjustable articulator by using an analog and a digital standardized photography technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary cast was digitized (T710) and positioned into a dental mannequin. The dental midline was not coincident with the facial midline and the maxillary occlusal plane was tilted. A reference scan of the assembled mannequin was obtained by using a facial scanner (Instarisa). Two groups were created based on the technique used to transfer the maxillary cast into the articulator (Panadent PCH): conventional facebow record (CNV group) or digital photograph (Photo group) (n=10). In the CNV group, facebow records (Kois Dentofacial analyzer system) were digitized (T710) and used to transfer the maxillary scan into the articulator by aligning it with the reference platform (Kois adjustable platform). In the Photo group, photographs with a reference glasses (Kois Reference Glasses) positioned into the mannequin were acquired. Each photograph was aligned with the maxillary scan. Then, the maxillary scan was transferred into the articulator by using the true horizontal axis information contained in the photograph. On the reference scan and each specimen, 10 linear measurements between the buccal cusps of the maxillary scan and the horizontal plane of the virtual articulator and a linear measurement between the maxillary dental midline and articulator midline were calculated. The measurements of the reference scan were used as a control to compute trueness and precision. Trueness was analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA followed by the pairwise comparison Tukey test (α=.05). Precision was evaluated by using the Levene and Wilcoxon Rank sum tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

The overall discrepancy measured in the CNV group was 0.620 ±0.396 mm, while in the Photo group it was 1.282 ±0.118 mm. Significant trueness differences were found in the midline (P=.037), anterior (P=.050), posterior right (P<.001), posterior left (P=.012), and overall discrepancy (P<.001) between the CNV and Photo groups. Significant precision discrepancies were found in the midline (P=.012), posterior right (P<.001), anterior (P<.001), posterior left (P=.002), and overall discrepancy (P<.001) between the CNV and Photo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The facebow record method impacted the accuracy of the maxillary cast transfer. The Photo group obtained better trueness in the midline transfer than the CNV group; however, the CNV group demonstrated better trueness in the anterior, posterior right, posterior left, and overall discrepancy of the maxillary cast transfer compared with the Photo group. Overall, the Photo group obtained better precision than the CNV group.

Surgical Accuracy of Positioning the Maxilla in Patients With Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Using Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing-Assisted Orthognathic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the surgical accuracy of positioning the maxilla in patients with skeletal class II malocclusion using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-assisted orthognathic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The samples consisted of 10 patients with skeletal class II malocclusion, whose cone-beam computed tomographys taken before and immediately after surgery were available and who underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery by a single surgeon using Le Fort I osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, Seoul, South Korea between January 2018 and December 2019. After virtual surgical planning was performed using the FACEGIDE system (Korea), surgical cutting guides, intermediate splints, and custom-made titanium mini-plates were fabricated using CAD/CAM technique. Using 8 landmarks (anterior nasal spine, point A, #16, #13, contact point between #11 and #21, #23, #26, posterior nasal spine), the mean differences between the virtually planned (Virtual) and actual postsurgical position of the maxilla (Actual) in the three-dimensional coordinates (ΔActual-Virtual) and their mean absolute deviations were investigated.

RESULTS

The mean differences of 8 landmarks were 0.42 mm left side movement in the transverse coordinate, 0.15 mm forward movement in the sagittal coordinate and 0.10 mm downward movement in the vertical coordinate. Their mean absolute deviations were 0.98, 0.67, and 0.62 mm in the sagittal, vertical, and transverse coordinates, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the mean difference was less than 0.5 mm and the range of error was less than 1.0 mm, CAD/CAM-assisted orthognathic surgery might have a high degree of surgical accuracy and clinical relevance in the positioning of the maxilla.

Technique to Maintain the Correct Spatial Orientation of the Maxillary Diagnostic Cast to that of the Master Cast in a Full-Mouth Rehabilitation Case

A common challenge in full-mouth rehabilitation is preserving the correct spatial orientation of the maxillary diagnostic, diagnostic wax-up and master casts within the dental articulator. Any malposition of the maxillary master cast will immediately invalidate the articulator settings that were programmed from the pantographic or axiographic tracing. This will subsequently affect the occlusal morphology of the restorations. The technique presented in this article helps to precisely relocate the maxillary master cast to the same spatial orientation as both the initial diagnostic, and diagnostic wax-up casts.

Comparison reproducibility between the facebow and a new technique based on a spirit level device

Objective: This study aimed to introduce a spirit level device for mounting maxillary casts to compare the reproducibility between the facebow and this new technique.Methods: The maxillary casts of 10 participants were mounted in three different situations: 1) with the facebow; 2) with the spirit level device, the participant in seated position; and 3) with the spirit level device with participant in standing position. Each procedure was performed by three different evaluators. The values obtained were calculated using the Technical Error of Measurement (TEM) and the inter-evaluator Coefficient of Variation (CV).Results: The mean values obtained were 4.3 mm, 2.2 mm, and 2.6 mm for absolute TEM; 8.7%, 5.4%, and 6.4% for relative TEM; and 7.3%, 4.5%, and 5.6% for CV.Conclusion: These results show that the facebow is less reproducible compared to the new device, demonstrating that the new technique can be satisfactorily used in clinical practice.

The accuracy and stability of the maxillary position after orthognathic surgery using a novel computer-aided surgical simulation system

Background

Many reports have been published on orthognathic surgery (OGS) using computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the maxillary repositioning and the stability of the maxilla in patients who underwent OGS using a newly developed CASS program, a customized osteotomy guide, and a customized miniplate.

Methods

Thirteen patients who underwent OGS from 2015 to 2017 were included. All patients underwent a bimaxillary operation. First, a skull-dentition hybrid 3D image was rendered by merging the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images with the dentition scan file. After virtual surgery (VS) using the FaceGide® program, patient-customized osteotomy guides and miniplates were then fabricated and used in the actual operation. To compare the VS with the actual surgery and postoperative skeletal changes, each reference point marked on the image was compared before the operation (T0) and three days (T1), four months (T2), and a year (T3) after the operation, and with the VS (Tv). The differences between ΔTv (Tv-T0) and ΔT1 (T1-T0) were statistically compared using tooth-based reference points. The superimposed images of Tv and T1 were also investigated at eight bone-based reference points. The differences between the reference points of the bone surface were examined to evaluate the stability of the miniplate on the maxilla over time.

Results

None of the patients experienced complications. There were no significant differences between the reference points based on the cusp tip between ΔTv and ΔT1 (p > 0.01). Additionally, there were no significant differences between the Tv and T1 values of the bone surface (p > 0.01). The mean difference in the bone surface between Tv and T1 was 1.01 ± 0.3 mm. Regarding the stability of the miniplate, there were no significant differences between the groups. The difference in the bone surface between T1 and T3 was − 0.37 ± 0.29 mm.

Conclusions

VS was performed using the FaceGide® program, and customized materials produced based on the VS were applied in actual OGS. The maxilla was repositioned in almost the same manner as in the VSP plan, and the maxillary position remained stable for a year.

Reproduction accuracy of articulator mounting with an arbitrary face-bow vs. average values-a controlled, randomized, blinded patient simulator study

OBJECTIVES

The benefit from positioning the maxillary casts with the aid of face-bows has been questioned in the past. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of arbitrary face-bow transfers compared to a process solely based on the orientation by means of average values. For optimized validity, the study was conducted using a controlled, randomized, anonymized, and blinded patient simulator study design.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-eight undergraduate dental students were randomly divided into two groups; both groups were applied to both methods, in opposite sequences. Investigated methods were the transfer of casts using an arbitrary face-bow in comparison to the transfer using average values based on Bonwill's triangle and the Balkwill angle. The "patient" used in this study was a patient simulator. All casts were transferred to the same individual articulator, and all the transferred casts were made using type IV special hard stone plaster; for the attachment into the articulator, type II plaster was used. A blinded evaluation was performed based on three-dimensional measurements of three reference points.

RESULTS

The results are presented three-dimensionally in scatterplots. Statistical analysis indicated a significantly smaller variance (Student's t test, p < 0.05) for the transfer using a face-bow, applicable for all three reference points.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an arbitrary face-bow significantly improves the transfer reliability and hence the validity.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To simulate the patient situation in an individual articulator correctly, casts should be transferred at least by means of an arbitrary face-bow.

Occlusion and Disocclusion Time Changes in Single Unit Crowns Designed by Functional Generated Path Technique: A Randomised Clinical Trial

Although it is believed that implementation of the functional generated path (FGP) technique can facilitate occlusal surface design for restorations, it has not been objectively compared in situ with the conventional fabrication yet. Therefore, in the present study, a single-blind crossover clinical trial was conducted using T-scan to compare changes in occlusion time (OT) and disocclusion time (DT) of single posterior artificial crowns designed differently using FGP technique (FGP), average-value FGP technique (AVR) and conventional fabrication (CON). Each of the 10 participants took part in the study tried three artificial crowns in different sequences according to a computer generated randomization list. The results objectively revealed that changes in OT and DT were significantly smaller for FGP than CON (P < 0.05) and considerably smaller for AVR than CON, respectively. The subjective feedback and the occlusal adjusting time were better and shorter for FGP and AVR than CON (P < 0.05). No harm to the participants occurred. Overall, FGP is an efficient technique showing more physiological harmonious relationship with the articulating system.

Virtual facebow technique

This article describes a virtual technique for transferring the location of a digitized cast from the patient to a virtual articulator (virtual facebow transfer). Using a virtual procedure, the maxillary digital cast is transferred to a virtual articulator by means of reverse engineering devices. The following devices necessary to carry out this protocol are available in many contemporary practices: an intraoral scanner, a digital camera, and specific software. Results prove the viability of integrating different tools and software and of completely integrating this procedure into a dental digital workflow.

Comparison of selected kinematic facebows applied to mandibular tracing

The study focused on the comparison between mechanical and computerized registration methods used by the two selected kinematic facebows. The material consisted of 35 women aged 18 to 35, studied using the Gerber Dynamic Facebow and the computerized ARCUSdigma II axiograph. To compare the devices the condylar path inclination (CPI) was recorded according to the Camper's line, enabling the acquisition of easily comparable values based on which the devices were objectively and subjectively analyzed. Statistics was performed for the obtained data. The study showed that the values for the CPI registrated by the ARCUSdigma II are significantly higher than those obtained by using the Gerber Dynamic Facebow. The significant difference in the records of the CPI is most likely a result of the differences in the registration techniques assumptions. ARCUSdigma II provides the user with more diagnostic options than Gerber Dynamic Facebow. Mechanical facebow handling has a higher risk of hand-measuring errors in tracing procedure. Due to high discrepancy of achieved results from different systems the authors recommend to use articulator compatible with facebow whose measurement has been done.

Surgical accuracy of maxillary repositioning according to type of surgical movement in two-jaw surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical accuracy of the maxillary repositioning according to the maxillary surgical movement type (SMT) in two-jaw orthognathic surgery (TJOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The samples consisted of 52 Korean young adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion treated with TJOS by one surgeon. Lateral cephalograms were taken 1 month before (T0) and 1 day after surgery (T1). The samples were allocated into maxillary advancement (MA), total setback (MS), impaction (MI), and elongation (ME) according to SMT. The distance from the upper incisor tip and the mesiobuccal cusp tip of the upper first molar to the horizontal and vertical reference lines at T0 and T1 were measured. Any discrepancy between the surgical treatment objective (STO) and the surgical result less than 1 mm was regarded as accurate. The accuracy rate (AR [number of the accurate sample/number of the sample] x 1000) and the surgical achievement ratio (SAR [amount of movement in surgical result/amount of movement in STO] x100) were calculated. Analysis variance (ANOVA) and crosstab analyses were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Although the MS (69.2%) and MI (69.0%) showed a lower AR than the MA (87.5%) and ME (83.3%), there was no significant difference in the distribution of accurate and inaccurate samples among the groups. The mean discrepancy between the STO and the surgical result was less than 1 mm in all groups. Although the ME (93.54%) showed a tendency of undercorrection and the MS (107.10%) and MI (105.42%) a tendency of overcorrection, there was no significant difference in SAR among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

If the surgical plan and procedure is done with caution, the MS and MI can be regarded as just as accurate a procedure as the MA and ME.

How accurate is model planning for orthognathic surgery?

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of model surgery prediction after orthognathic surgery and to identify possible errors associated with the prediction process. The study included 46 patients who had undergone orthognathic surgical procedures; 22 in Group A who had had a Le Fort I osteotomy; and 24 in Group B who had had a Le Fort I osteotomy and mandibular setback surgery. The immediate postoperative and preoperative lateral cephalograms were analysed to calculate surgical changes; these were compared with those obtained from model surgery prediction and a statistical analysis was undertaken. The maxilla was more under-advanced and over-impacted anteriorly than predicted by model surgery. The amount of mandibular setback was more than that predicted by model surgery. None of the differences between prediction planning and actual surgical changes was statistically significant at p<0.05. Inaccuracy with the face bow recording, the intermediate wafer, and auto-rotation of the mandible in the supine or anaesthetized patient would appear to be the principal reasons for errors. Inaccuracies are associated with the transfer of prediction planning to model surgery planning and prediction, which should be eliminated to improve the accuracy and predictability of orthognathic surgery.

Accuracy of a fixed value nasion relator in facebow design

PURPOSE

This study examined whether a fixed value nasion relator accurately locates the orbitale in a patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The mean value for the vertical distance between soft tissue nasion and orbitale was determined through the analysis of cephalometric radiographs of 114 adult patients. This value was then compared to a facebow design, which uses a fixed value of 25.4 mm.

RESULTS

In this study, the mean distance between the orbitale and nasion was found to be 26.8 mm. The values ranged from 15.9 to 39.4 mm with a standard deviation of 3.87 mm.

CONCLUSION

The difference between the calculated mean and the 25.4 mm fixed value was less than 2.0 mm and presumed to be clinically irrelevant; however, an accumulation of design errors combined with the variation within the patient population was asserted to be clinically relevant and makes the use of a fixed value nasion relator impractical.

Comparison of three facebow/semi-adjustable articulator systems for planning orthognathic surgery

Our aim was to measure the steepness of the occlusal plane produced by three different semi-adjustable articulators: the Dentatus Type ARL, Denar MkII, and the Whipmix Quickmount 8800, and to assess the influence of possible systematic errors in positioning of study casts on articulators that are used to plan orthognathic surgery. Twenty patients (10 skeletal class II, and 10 skeletal class III) who were having pre-surgical orthodontics at Liverpool University Dental Hospital were studied. The measurement of the steepness of the occlusal plane was taken as the angle between the facebow bite-fork and the horizontal arm of the articulator. This was compared with the angle of the maxillary occlusal plane to the Frankfort plane as measured on lateral cephalometry (the gold standard). The Whipmix was closest to the gold standard as it flattened the occlusal plane by only 2 degrees (P<0.05). The results of the Denar and Dentatus differed significantly from those of the cephalogram as they flattened the occlusal plane by 5 degrees and 6. 5 degrees (P<0.01), respectively. Clinicians are encouraged to verify the steepness of the occlusal plane on mounted study casts before the technician makes the model.

Reliability of an ear-bow arbitrary face-bow transfer instrument

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Accuracy of techniques for recording the orientation of the maxillary arch to the articulation of the temporomandibular joints has been reported. The variability contributed by the dentist and the equipment within a technique may also contribute to technical error.

PURPOSE

This study investigated the variability of a group of dentists who used an arbitrary ear-face-bow instrument to mount a maxillary cast.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The same maxillary cast on a single experimental subject was mounted on an articulator with a common arbitrary ear-face-bow instrument. This cast was equipped with 4 reference points for the measurement of changes of spatial orientation of the cast, which were determined through coordinate measurements with a machinist's microscope. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine statistically significant changes in spatial orientation with a Wilks' Lambda test to compare mean values.

RESULTS

A confidence interval of 95% demonstrated that any dentist might expect a range of +/-1.2 mm error in using this instrument/articulator combination. The 3 dentists did not demonstrate any significant differences in the spatial orientation of their mountings in the vertical or horizontal directions. However, there were significant differences in their mountings in linear distance changes of the patient's posterior right side.

CONCLUSION

A range of inherent error attributable to the operator using this instrument was recorded.

A comparative study of two arbitrary face-bow transfer systems for orthognathic surgery planning

The relative reproducibility of two widely used arbitrary face-bow transfer systems, the Denar Slidematic and the Dentatus type AEB, was assessed for use in orthognathic surgery planning. A novel method was also developed to determine any variation in three-dimensional spatial position and orientation of the maxillary cast. This envelope of movement enabled realistic comparisons to be made for each face-bow system, operator, and skeletal type. The overall face-bow/articulator procedure showed poor reproducibility. However, the Denar Slidematic face-bow was better (P < 0.001) than the Dentatus type AEB standard face-bow, and the errors were higher in the anteroposterior and lateral directions than the vertical direction. There was no significant difference between operators for each system.