Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of two different digital occlusal analysis methods

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity of T-Scan digital occlusal analysis system and the occlusal analysis mode of the CEREC Omnicam system, which is mainly used for design/production, using the data recorded at the maximum intercuspal position.

Materials and methods

Occlusal recordings were obtained from healthy 20 females and 20 males aged 18–25 at the maximum intercuspal position. Records were saved as.jpeg format and transferred to Adobe Photoshop CS6 program. Blue, green, and red colors (shown by the same color codes in both systems) representing light, intense, and tight contacts, respectively, were evaluated in terms of the pixel counts. For statistical comparison, the differences between the systems independent sample T test and, between the genders, one sample T test were used (α = 0.05).

Results

The total numbers of pixels of all colors which are evaluated with T-Scan and CEREC Omnicam in females were 31,296.6 and 15,745, respectively, and in males 39,812.3 and 17,462, respectively. In both systems, the blue contact area is the most seen. For all colors tested, T-Scan recorded more contact than those of CEREC Omnicam in both genders and statistically significant difference was found between two systems for all colors. In both systems, recorded contacts are significantly higher in men than in women. Compared with women, 27% more contact area was recorded in men with T-Scan and 11% more with CEREC Omnicam was obtained.

Conclusions

While T-Scan was found sensitive even in the diagnosis of light contacts, the CEREC Omnicam was found sensitive only in the diagnosis of tight contacts.

Clinical relevance

Although both T-Scan and CEREC Omnicam are effective in occlusal analysis, T-Scan’s sensitivity was found to be higher.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04798729

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferro KJ, Morgano SM, Driscoll CF, Freilich MA, Guckes AD, Knoernschild KL, McGarry TJ, Twain M (2017) The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 117(5):1–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Korioth T (1990) Number and location of occlusal contacts in intercuspal position. J Prosthet Dent 64(2):206–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pyakurel U, Long H, Jian F, Sun J, Zhu Y, Jha H, Lai W (2013) Mechanism, accuracy and application of T-Scan system in dentistry- a review. J Nepal Dent Assoc 13(1):52–56

    Google Scholar 

  4. Koc D, Dogan A, Bek B (2010) Bite force and influential factors on bite force measurements: a literature review. Eur J Dent 4(2):223–232

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Filtchev AD, Kalachev YS (2008) Phenomenon of domination of the strongest contacts in centric occlusion. Quintessence Int 39(3):99–106

    Google Scholar 

  6. Palinkas M, Nassar MSP, Cecílio FA, Siéssere S, Semprini M, Machado-de-Sousa JP, Hallak JEC, Regalo SCH (2010) Age and gender influence on maximal bite force and masticatory muscles thickness. Arch Oral Biol 55(10):797–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Garner L, Kotwal N (1973) Correlation study of incisive biting forces with age, sex, and anterior occlusion. J Dent Res 52(4):698–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bozhkova TP (2016) The T-SCAN system in evaluating occlusal contacts. Folia Med 58(2):122–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Okeson JP (2008) Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion. Springer, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J (2006) Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics, 5th edn. Elsevier Health Sciences, China

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jambhekar S, Kheur M, Kothavade M, Dugal R (2010) Occlusion and occlusal considerations in implantology. J Indian Dent Assoc 2(1):125–130

    Google Scholar 

  12. Türp JC, Greene C, Strub J (2008) Dental occlusion: a critical reflection on past, present and future concepts. J Oral Rehabil 35(6):446–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Plesh O, Stohler C (1992) Prosthetic rehabilitation in temporomandibular disorder and orofacial pain patients. Clinical problem solving. Dental Clinics of North America 36(3):581–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bell YL, Jämsä T, Korri S, Niemi PM, Alanen P (2002) Effect of artificial occlusal interferences depends on previous experience of temporomandibular disorders. Acta Odontol Scand 60(4):219–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dawson PE (2007) Functional Occlusion: From TMJ to Smile Design, 1st edn. Mosby, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  16. McNeill C (1997) Science and Practice of Occlusion. Quintessence Publishing, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  17. Qadeer S, Kerstein R, Kim RJY, Huh J-B, Shin S-W (2012) Relationship between articulation paper mark size and percentage of force measured with computerized occlusal analysis. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 4(1):7–12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Brizuela-Velasco A, Álvarez-Arenal Á, Ellakuria-Echevarria J, del Río-Highsmith J, Santamaría-Arrieta G, Martín-Bianco N (2015) Influence of articulating paper thickness on occlusal contacts registration: a preliminary Report. Int J Prosthodont 28(4):360–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Saad MN, Weiner G, Ehrenberg D, Weiner S (2008) Effects of load and indicator type upon occlusal contact markings. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 85(1):18–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Carey JP, Craig M, Kerstein RB, Radke J (2007) Determining a relationship between applied occlusal load and articulating paper mark area. Open Dent J 1:1–7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Majithia I, Arora V, Kumar SA, Saxena V, Mittal M (2015) Comparison of articulating paper markings and T-Scan III recordings to evaluate occlusal force in normal and rehabilitated maxillofacial trauma patients. Med J Armed Forces India 71:382–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bulycheva D, Bulycheva, YA (2015) Applying the diagnostic scanner "T-Scan" to analyze the occlusion relationships of the dentitions in the prosthodontist’s practice. In International Scientific and Practical Conference World Science 2(4):13–14

  23. Saraçoǧlu A, Özpinar B (2002) In vivo and in vitro evaluation of occlusal indicator sensitivity. J Prosthet Dent 88(5):522–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kerstein RB, Radke J (2014) Clinician accuracy when subjectively interpreting articulating paper markings. CRANIO® 32(1):13–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Abdulateef S (2018) In-vivo comparison of digital and conventional inter-occlusal records, in Craniofacial Science. University of British Columbia, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  26. Arslan Y, Karakoca Nemli S, Bankoğlu Güngör M, Tamam E, Yılmaz H (2015) Evaluation of biogeneric design techniques with CEREC CAD/CAM system. J Adv Prosthodont 7(6):431–436

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Davies S, Gray R (2001) Occlusion: What is occlusion? Br Dent J 191(5):235–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Becker CM, Kaiser DA (1993) Evolution of occlusion and occlusal instruments. J Prosthodont 2(1):33–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Serra C, Manns A (2013) Bite force measurements with hard and soft bite surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 40(8):563–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Testa M, Di Marco A, Pertusio R, Van Roy P, Cattrysse E, Roatta S (2016) A validation study of a new instrument for low cost bite force measurement. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 30:243–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Coelho MF, das Neves Cavalcanti B, Neves ACC, Jóias RP, de Mello Rode S (2015) Influence of dental chair backrest inclination on the registration of the mandibular position. J Prosthet Dent 114(5):693–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Haralur SB, Al-Gadhaan S, Al-Qahtani A, Mossa A, Al-Shehri W, Addas M (2014) Influence of functional head postures on the dynamic functional occlusal parameters. Ann Med Health Sci Res 4(4):562–566

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Jain R, Jabbal R, Bindra S, Aggarwal S, Jain R (2015) T-Scan a digital pathway to occlusal perfection: A review. Ann Prosthodont Restor Dent 1(1):32–35

    Google Scholar 

  34. Toledo MFDSM, Jóias RP, Marques-Iasi YS, Neves ACC, Rode, S.d.M. (2014) Thickness and marking quality of different occlusal contact registration strips. J Appl Oral Sci 22(6):516–521

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Schelb E, Kaiser DA, Brukl CE (1985) Thickness and marking characteristics of occlusal registration strips. J Prosthet Dent 54(1):122–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Forrester SE, Presswood RG, Toy AC, Pain GT (2011) Occlusal measurement method can affect SEMG activity during occlusion. J Oral Rehabil 38(9):655–660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. T-SCAN® 9.1 User Manual (2015) Boston

  38. Sarwar MS, Dobashi Y, Preston C, Wyss JK, Mirabbasi S, Madden JDW (2017) Bend, stretch, and touch: Locating a finger on an actively deformed transparent sensor array. Sci Adv 3(3):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Koos B, Godt A, Schille C, Göz G (2010) Precision of an instrumentation-based method of analyzing occlusion and its resulting distribution of forces in the dental arch. J Orofac Orthop 71(6):403–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bakke M (2006) Bite force and occlusion. Seminars in Orthodontics 12(2):120–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Shinogaya T, Bakke M, Thomsen C, Vilmann A, Matsumoto M (2000) Bite force and occlusal load in healthy young subjects–a methodological study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 8(1):11–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Braun S, Hnat WP, Freudenthaler JW, Marcotte MR, Hönigle K, Johnson BE (1996) A study of maximum bite force during growth and development. Angle Orthod 66(4):261–264

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Solaberrieta E, Etxaniz O, Otegi JR, Brizuela A, Pradies G (2017) Customized procedure to display T-Scan occlusal contacts. J Prosthet Dent 117(1):18–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study was supported by Gazi University Scientific Research Projects Unit (no: 03/2018–22).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ankara Polatlı Oral and Dental Health Center, Ankara, Turkey

    Sibel Ezgi Bostancıoğlu

  2. Department of Industrial Design, Faculty of Architecture, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Abdullah Toğay

  3. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Evşen Tamam

Authors
  1. Sibel Ezgi Bostancıoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdullah Toğay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evşen Tamam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evşen Tamam.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all the study participants.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bostancıoğlu, S.E., Toğay, A. & Tamam, E. Comparison of two different digital occlusal analysis methods. Clin Oral Invest 26, 2095–2109 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04191-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04191-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation