Saygılı Sina, Özcan-Sezgin Ayşenur, Aktosun Alper, Bilgen Berk, Sülün Tonguç
Department of Prosthodontics, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Adv Prosthodont. 2025 Aug;17(4):235-246. doi: 10.4047/jap.2025.17.4.235. Epub 2025 Aug 19.
This study investigated how different data collection methods affect final restoration design and dynamic occlusal morphology.
Digital systems allow intraoral recording of functional occlusal paths through the digitally recorded functionally generated pathway (DRFGP) technique, using intraoral scanners and optical jaw tracking. Two substudies were conducted. Study I assessed full-arch occlusal splints in 31 healthy participants with Angle Class I occlusion, comparing outcomes from a virtual articulator and jaw tracking systems. Study II evaluated three-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs) in 12 participants, comparing models from virtual articulators, face scans, and jaw tracking. Additionally, sagittal and protrusive condylar inclinations and the Bennett angle were compared between two jaw tracking systems: an optical tracking device (OTD) and an electronic tracking device (ETD). Statistical analysis included normality tests and non-parametric tests with significance set at < .05.
Condylar inclination measurements significantly differed between OTD and ETD ( < .01). Lateral condylar inclination values showed discrepancies, excluding mediotrusion. Occlusal splint surfaces showed significant deviations using OTD ( < .01). For FPDs, tooth 1.6 exhibited notable differences.
Despite significant differences in jaw tracking measurements, the overall impact on occlusal design for both full-arch and FPD restorations was minimal. Semi-adjustable articulators produced comparable outcomes to digital methods, supporting the clinical reliability of both conventional and digital workflows.
本研究调查了不同的数据收集方法如何影响最终修复体设计和动态咬合形态。
数字系统允许通过数字记录的功能生成路径（DRFGP）技术，使用口腔内扫描仪和光学颌骨跟踪来记录口腔内的功能咬合路径。进行了两项子研究。研究I评估了31名Angle I类咬合的健康参与者的全牙弓咬合夹板，比较了虚拟牙合架和颌骨跟踪系统的结果。研究II评估了12名参与者的三单位固定局部义齿（FPD），比较了虚拟牙合架、面部扫描和颌骨跟踪的模型。此外，比较了两种颌骨跟踪系统：光学跟踪设备（OTD）和电子跟踪设备（ETD）之间的矢状和前伸髁突倾斜度以及Bennett角。统计分析包括正态性检验和非参数检验，显著性设定为<0.05。
OTD和ETD之间的髁突倾斜度测量值存在显著差异（<0.01）。外侧髁突倾斜度值存在差异，不包括正中侧方运动。使用OTD时，咬合夹板表面显示出显著偏差（<0.01）。对于FPD，1.6号牙表现出明显差异。
尽管颌骨跟踪测量存在显著差异，但对全牙弓和FPD修复体咬合设计的总体影响最小。半可调牙合架产生的结果与数字方法相当，支持传统和数字工作流程的临床可靠性。
