Hatzi P, Millstein P, Maya A
School of Dental Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, Mass, USA.
J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Mar;85(3):236-45. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2001.109987.
It has been reported that articulators are interchangeable, which means that a clinician should be able to use one articulator and send casts to a dental laboratory with the assurance that the casts will be remounted with positional accuracy on a similar articulator.
The purpose of the study was to determine whether mounted casts could be transferred from 1 articulator to another with positional accuracy and whether the hinge axis was reproducible in each of the articulators tested.
This study compared left and right second premolars and first molar occlusal contact areas with respective contact areas of like-mounted casts. Five calibrated Whip Mix 3040, 5 calibrated Girrbach Artex AL, and 5 calibrated KaVo Protar articulators were tested. Impact-resistant resin casts mounted in occlusion on 1 articulator were transferred to 4 like articulators. Each of the 5 articulators of each brand was opened and closed 10 times. Ten vinyl polysiloxane right and left posterior interocclusal records of the occluded casts were made for each articulator. The use of a computerized image analysis program provided quantitative measurements of light transmitted through the occlusal records. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used for each of the 4 independent variables of the study (molar differences, premolar differences, left differences, right differences). By using a calibrated grid, a numerical assessment of positional changes was made in millimeters.
None of the articulator systems was found to be exact, and no single articulator was an exact duplicate of another (P<.01). The Whip Mix articulator showed greater deviation both in hinge axis repeatability and in articulator interchangeability than the KaVo. The Artex articulator provided the most consistent hinge axis repeatability and interchangeability of the 3 brands of articulators.
The Artex brand reproduced dental cast positions more consistently than the other articulators tested.
据报道,牙合架是可互换的,这意味着临床医生应该能够使用一个牙合架并将模型送到牙科实验室,确保模型能在类似的牙合架上以位置精确性重新上架。
本研究的目的是确定上架的模型能否在不同牙合架之间以位置精确性进行转移,以及在每个测试的牙合架中铰链轴是否可重现。
本研究比较了左、右第二前磨牙和第一磨牙的咬合接触区域与类似上架模型的相应接触区域。测试了5个校准过的Whip Mix 3040、5个校准过的Girrbach Artex AL和5个校准过的KaVo Protar牙合架。在一个牙合架上咬合安装的抗冲击树脂模型被转移到4个类似的牙合架上。每个品牌的5个牙合架各开合10次。为每个牙合架制作10份咬合模型的乙烯基聚硅氧烷左右后牙间咬合记录。使用计算机图像分析程序对透过咬合记录的光进行定量测量。对研究的4个自变量(磨牙差异、前磨牙差异、左侧差异、右侧差异)分别使用Kruskal-Wallis检验。通过使用校准网格,以毫米为单位对位置变化进行数值评估。
未发现任何牙合架系统是精确的,也没有单个牙合架是另一个的精确复制品(P<0.01)。Whip Mix牙合架在铰链轴重复性和牙合架互换性方面比KaVo表现出更大的偏差。Artex牙合架在3个品牌牙合架中提供了最一致的铰链轴重复性和互换性。
与其他测试的牙合架相比,Artex品牌在复制牙模位置方面更一致。