Buduru Smaranda, Finta Emilia, Almasan Oana, Fluerasu Mirela, Manziuc Manuela, Iacob Simona, Culcitchi Cristian, Negucioiu Marius
Prosthodontics Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Dento-alveolar Surgery Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Med Pharm Rep. 2020 Jul;93(3):292-296. doi: 10.15386/mpr-1595. Epub 2020 Jul 22.
Identifying the optimal method for occlusion analysis by comparing examination sensitivity of the static and dynamic occlusion using three systems: clinical occlusion analysis, semi-adjustable articulator and virtual articulator (3Shape, Denmark) occlusion analysis.
The occlusion analysis of sixteen patients was performed using the three systems. In order to analyze the number of concordant and discordant points and trajectories, the clinical method was compared to the semi-adjustable articulator and to the computerized method.
The greatest correspondence was obtained by comparing the clinical and the articulator methods, having a success rate of 85.25%, versus the clinical and the computerized method with a success rate of 73.25%. The propulsion registered the highest discrepancies: 35% in case of the semi-adjustable articulator comparison and 62% in case of the virtual articulator comparison.
The semi-adjustable articulator was superior in static and dynamic occlusion analysis compared to the virtual articulator. The analysis of the dynamic occlusion is the most problematic due to its dependency on the individual anatomy of the glenoid fossa which cannot be exactly reproduced by any articulator.
通过比较使用三种系统（临床咬合分析、半可调牙合架和虚拟牙合架（丹麦3Shape公司）咬合分析）对静态和动态咬合的检查敏感性，确定咬合分析的最佳方法。
使用这三种系统对16名患者进行咬合分析。为了分析一致和不一致点及轨迹的数量，将临床方法与半可调牙合架方法以及计算机化方法进行比较。
临床方法与牙合架方法比较的一致性最高，成功率为85.25%，而临床方法与计算机化方法比较的成功率为73.25%。前伸运动的差异最大：与半可调牙合架比较时为35%，与虚拟牙合架比较时为62%。
与虚拟牙合架相比，半可调牙合架在静态和动态咬合分析中更具优势。动态咬合分析是最具问题的，因为它依赖于关节窝的个体解剖结构，而任何牙合架都无法精确再现。
