Sayed Mohammed E, Al-Makramani Bandar M A, Gangadharappa Praveen, Al Moaleem Mohammed M, Najmi Loay E, Daghreeri Faisal A A, Nahari Rayan A, Alamri Mohammad, Hassan Nisreen Nabiel, Almarzouki Mai, AlResayes Saad Saleh, Alshahrani Ahid Amer, Alqahtani Saeed M, Mattoo Khurshid
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Intern, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Med Sci Monit. 2025 Feb 22;31:e947265. doi: 10.12659/MSM.947265.
BACKGROUND Maxillomandibular relationship records facilitate patient stomatognathic information transfer to dental laboratories, but new bite registration materials (BRMs) lack scientific evidence on linear dimensional accuracy. This in vitro investigation compared linear dimensional accuracy of 6 commercial scannable and transparent BRMs with a typical BRM at 1 h. MATERIAL AND METHODS Seven American Dental Association (ADA)-approved BRMs were categorized into 1 control and 2 experimental groups: control: Occlufast Rock; scannable group: Occlufast CAD, Virtual CADBite, and Flexitime Bite; and transparent group: Maxill Bite, Charmflex Bite, and Defend ClearBite. The study used modified ADA specification no. 19 to standardize bite registration record samples, which were examined using a stereomicroscope to compare with control group and standard die measurements. Median, interquartile range, and median rank scores were used for statistical interpretation. One-way ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis rank test) and multiple-comparison Dunn test with Bonferroni correction compared between and within group differences at the probability P value ≤0.05. RESULTS The median linear differences varied in scannable, -0.06 (0.24%) to -0.11mm (0.44%), and transparent, -0.06 (0.24%) to -0.07 (0.28%), BRMs, with transparent BRMs showing more linear accuracy than scannable BRMs. A statistically significant difference from control at 1 h was observed for 3 different commercial brands. All transparent BRMs exhibited markedly reduced linear discrepancies, compared with the standard BRM (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS All BRMs at 1 h showed a reduced linear dimensions, indicating shrinkage. All investigated BRMs demonstrated clinically acceptable linear discrepancies, with transparent BRMs exhibiting less change than scannable BRMs.
上下颌关系记录有助于将患者口腔颌面部信息传递至牙科实验室,但新型咬合记录材料(BRM)在线性尺寸精度方面缺乏科学依据。本体外研究比较了6种市售可扫描透明BRM与一种典型BRM在1小时时的线性尺寸精度。
7种美国牙科协会(ADA)批准的BRM分为1个对照组和2个实验组:对照组:Occlufast Rock;可扫描组:Occlufast CAD、Virtual CADBite和Flexitime Bite;透明组:Maxill Bite、Charmflex Bite和Defend ClearBite。本研究采用修改后的ADA规范第19号对咬合记录样本进行标准化,使用体视显微镜对其进行检查,以与对照组和标准模型测量结果进行比较。中位数、四分位间距和中位数秩次分数用于统计分析。采用单因素方差分析(Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验)和多重比较Dunn检验,并进行Bonferroni校正,比较组间和组内差异,P值≤0.05。
可扫描BRM的线性差异中位数在-0.06(0.24%)至-0.11mm(0.44%)之间,透明BRM的线性差异中位数在-0.06(0.24%)至-0.07(0.28%)之间,透明BRM的线性精度高于可扫描BRM。观察到3种不同商业品牌在1小时时与对照组存在统计学显著差异。与标准BRM相比,所有透明BRM的线性差异均显著减小(P<0.05)。
所有BRM在1小时时均显示线性尺寸减小,表明存在收缩。所有研究的BRM在临床上均表现出可接受的线性差异,透明BRM的变化小于可扫描BRM。