Accuracy of Dynamic Virtual Articulation: Trueness and Precision.

PURPOSE: To study the effects of altering condylar settings and pin openings on the trueness and precision of virtual articulators vs. mechanical articulators.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary and mandibular typodonts with fiducial markers were mounted on a mechanical Artex-CR articulator, and the mandibular teeth were prepared to allow guidance solely by the posterior determinants of the articulator and the incisal table. The relationship of the mounted typodonts was preserved digitally by scanning using manufacturer transfer plate adaptors. On the mechanical articulator, pattern resin was allowed to set between the maxillary and mandibular occlusal surfaces (area #25-30) at the endpoints of dynamic movements at 3 condylar inclinations (SCI): 10°, 30°, and 45°, n = 12/inclination, or at 3 incisal pin openings (2, 5, and 10 mm, n = 12/opening). All other articulator settings were kept constant. Resin specimens attached to the typodonts were scanned within 5 minutes of setting, then removed, and the articulated typodonts rescanned. Fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) #25-30 were designed on the virtual articulator using identical parameters to the mechanical articulator. Dynamic virtual movements were used to sculpt the design, and a file of the design was saved. The files of both types of samples were aligned and overlaid. Interocclusal separation was measured in triplicate at the indentation created by the mesiolabioincisal point angle on the incisal edge of #8 and the mesiobucco-occlusal point angle of #3. Trueness and precision of both types of articulators were calculated and compared using one-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference at altered pin openings in either trueness (F = 0.202, p = 0.37) or precision (F = 3.134, p = 0.09) for the majority of measurements. The only significant difference was in the precision between the 2 types of articulators at 5 mm incisal opening, and only at the anterior measurement point (F = 15.134, p = 0.0008); however, these differences were less than 100 μm. When the SCI was altered, there was no statistically significant difference (F = 3.624, p > 0.05) between the virtual and mechanical articulators in trueness for 5 of the 6 measurements obtained (F = 3.624, p = 0.07) or for all of the precision measurements (F = 3.529, p = 0.07). The one trueness measurement that was significantly different (F = 9.237, p = 0.006) occured at SCI of 10°, and it was less than 100 µm.

CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic movements on the virtual articulator were shown to be as true and precise as to the mechanical articulator. When there were deviations, these deviations were less than 100 µm and thus, these deviations may not be clinically relevant.