Petrie Cynthia S, Woolsey Gerald D, Williams Karen
University of Missouri-Kansas City, School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA.
J Prosthodont. 2003 Jun;12(2):102-10. doi: 10.1016/S1059-941X(03)00037-8.
The purpose of this study was to compare recordings of mandibular movements obtained with a Denar mechanical pantograph to those obtained with a Denar computerized axiograph (Cadiax compact).
Pantographic recordings and computerized axiograms were collected on 10 subjects. All of the subjects had intact dentition and no clinical signs or symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction. Tracings produced with the 2 instruments were compared using pantographic reproducibility indices (PRIs). Recordings with each instrument were repeated twice and assessed for consistency. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to compare PRI scores obtained with the pantograph and the axiograph. Recordings with both instruments were repeated 2 weeks to 1 month later, and new PRI scores were calculated. Consistency between initial and second PRI scores for each instrument was assessed using a coefficient of stability.
The coefficients of stability between the initial and second recordings were r = 0.91 for mechanical pantography and r = -0.06 for computerized axiography. Comparison of recordings made by mechanical pantography and computerized axiography at the initial and second recordings showed poor concordance, with coefficients of 0.23 and -0.11, respectively.
PRI scores recorded with the mechanical pantograph were consistent between the initial and second recordings. In contrast, recordings with the computerized axiograph appeared highly inconsistent across time. PRI scores calculated from the axiographs were significantly higher than PRI scores calculated from pantographic tracings for the same subject.
本研究的目的是比较使用迪纳尔机械面弓记录仪获得的下颌运动记录与使用迪纳尔计算机轴面断层仪（Cadiax compact）获得的记录。
对10名受试者进行了面弓记录和计算机轴面断层扫描。所有受试者牙列完整，无颞下颌关节紊乱的临床体征或症状。使用面弓再现性指数（PRI）比较两种仪器产生的描记图。每种仪器的记录重复两次，并评估其一致性。使用皮尔逊相关系数比较面弓和轴面断层仪获得的PRI分数。两种仪器的记录在2周至1个月后重复进行，并计算新的PRI分数。使用稳定性系数评估每种仪器初始和第二次PRI分数之间的一致性。
机械面弓记录法初始记录与第二次记录之间的稳定性系数为r = 0.91，计算机轴面断层记录法为r = -0.06。机械面弓记录法和计算机轴面断层记录法在初始记录和第二次记录时的比较显示一致性较差，系数分别为0.23和-0.11。
机械面弓记录的PRI分数在初始记录和第二次记录之间是一致的。相比之下，计算机轴面断层仪的记录在不同时间似乎高度不一致。同一受试者轴面断层图计算出的PRI分数显著高于面弓描记图计算出的PRI分数。
