DeLong R, Knorr S, Anderson G C, Hodges J, Pintado M R
Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, Department of Restorative Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, USA.
J Dent. 2007 Jun;35(6):528-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.02.004. Epub 2007 Apr 5.
Compare occlusal contacts calculated from 3D virtual models created from clinical records to contacts identified clinically using shimstock and transillumination.
Upper and lower full arch alginate impressions and vinyl polysiloxane centric interocclusal records were made of 12 subjects. Stone casts made from the alginate impressions and the interocclusal records were optically scanned. Three-dimensional virtual models of the dental arches and interocclusal records were constructed using the Virtual Dental Patient Software. Contacts calculated from the virtual interocclusal records and from the aligned upper and lower virtual arch models were compared to those identified clinically using 0.01mm shimstock and transillumination of the interocclusal record. Virtual contacts and transillumination contacts were compared by anatomical region and by contacting tooth pairs to shimstock contacts. Because there is no accepted standard for identifying occlusal contacts, methods were compared in pairs with one labeled "standard" and the second labeled "test". Accuracy was defined as the number of contacts and non-contacts of the "test" that were in agreement with the "standard" divided by the total number of contacts and non-contacts of the "standard".
Accuracy of occlusal contacts calculated from virtual interocclusal records and aligned virtual casts compared to transillumination were: 0.87+/-0.05 and 0.84+/-0.06 by region and 0.95+/-0.07 and 0.95+/-0.05 by tooth, respectively. Comparisons with shimstock were: 0.85+/-0.15 (record), 0.84+/-0.14 (casts), and 81+/-17 (transillumination).
The virtual record, aligned virtual arches, and transillumination methods of identifying contacts are equivalent, and show better agreement with each other than with the shimstock method.
比较根据临床记录创建的三维虚拟模型计算出的咬合接触与使用咬合纸和透照法临床确定的接触。
对12名受试者制取上下全牙弓藻酸盐印模和乙烯基聚硅氧烷正中咬合记录。对藻酸盐印模和咬合记录制成的石膏模型进行光学扫描。使用虚拟牙科患者软件构建牙弓和咬合记录的三维虚拟模型。将根据虚拟咬合记录以及对齐的上下虚拟牙弓模型计算出的接触与使用0.01mm咬合纸和咬合记录透照法临床确定的接触进行比较。通过解剖区域以及与咬合纸接触的牙对，将虚拟接触和透照接触与咬合纸接触进行比较。由于尚无公认的确定咬合接触的标准，因此将方法成对比较，一种标记为“标准”，另一种标记为“测试”。准确性定义为“测试”中与“标准”一致的接触和非接触数量除以“标准”的接触和非接触总数。
与透照法相比，根据虚拟咬合记录和对齐的虚拟模型计算出的咬合接触准确性分别为：按区域为0.87±0.05和0.84±0.06，按牙齿为0.95±0.07和0.95±0.05。与咬合纸的比较结果为：0.85±0.15（记录）、0.84±0.14（模型）和81±17（透照法）。
确定接触的虚拟记录、对齐的虚拟牙弓和透照法是等效的，并且彼此之间的一致性优于咬合纸法。
