OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Clinical oral investigations
Jul, 2021;25 (7): 4635-4642.

Elastic deformation of the mandibular jaw revisited-a clinical comparison between digital and conventional impressions using a reference.

Alexander Schmidt, Leona Klussmann, Maximiliane A Schlenz, Bernd Wöstmann
Author Information
  1. Alexander Schmidt: Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany. alexander.schmidt@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de. ORCID
  2. Leona Klussmann: Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
  3. Maximiliane A Schlenz: Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
  4. Bernd Wöstmann: Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
PMID: 33442777 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03777-z

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Due to the partly strongly differing results in the literature, the aim of the present study was to investigate a possible deformation of the mandible during mouth opening using an intraoral scanner (IOS) and a conventional impression for comparison with a reference aid.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four steel spheres were reversibly luted in the mandibular (n = 50) with a metallic reference aid at maximum mouth opening (MMO). Two digital impressions (Trios3), at MMO and at slightly mouth opening SMO and a conventional impression (Impregum), were taken as the measuring accuracy of the reference structure was already known. Difference between MMO-SMO for digital impressions and deviations between digital and conventional (SMO) were calculated. Furthermore, the angle between the normal vectors of two constructed planes was measured. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS25.
RESULTS: Deviations for linear distances ranged from -1 ± 3 μm up to 17 ± 78 μm (digital impressions, MMO-SMO), from 19 ± 16 μm up to 132 ± 90 μm (digital impressions, SMO), and from 28 ± 17 μm up to 60 ± 52 μm (conventional impressions, SMO). There were no significant differences for digital impressions (MMO-SMO), and there were significant differences between the conventional and digital impressions at SMO.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the present study, no mandibular deformation could be detected during mouth opening with regard to the digital impressions. The results were rather within the measuring tolerance of the intraoral scanner.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the present study, no deformation of the mandibular during mouth opening could be observed at the level previously assumed. Therewith related, dental techniques related to a possible mandibular deformation therefore should be reconsidered.

Keywords

Clinical study Dental impression technique Digital dentistry Dimensional measurement accuracy Full-arch impression Mandibular prosthesis

References

  1. Horiuchi M, Ichikawa T, Noda M, Matsumoto N (1997) Use of interimplant displacement to measure mandibular distortion during jaw movements in humans. Arch Oral Biol 42:185–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9969(96)00101-x [DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9969(96)00101-x]
  2. Korioth TW, Hannam AG (1994) Deformation of the human mandible during simulated tooth clenching. J Dent Res 73:56–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345940730010801 [DOI: 10.1177/00220345940730010801]
  3. Sivaraman K, Chopra A, Venkatesh SB (2016) Clinical importance of median mandibular flexure in oral rehabilitation: a review. J Oral Rehabil 43:215–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12361 [DOI: 10.1111/joor.12361]
  4. Jung F (1952) Elasticity of the bony structure of the juvenile dental system. Fortschr Kieferorthop 13:56–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02170685 [DOI: 10.1007/BF02170685]
  5. McDowell JA, Regli CP (1961) A quantitative analysis of the decrease in width of the mandibular arch during forced movements of the mandible. J Dent Res 40:1183–1185 [DOI: 10.1177/00220345610400061201]
  6. Burch JG, Borchers G (1970) Method for study of mandibular arch width change. J Dent Res 49:463. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345700490025101 [DOI: 10.1177/00220345700490025101]
  7. Goodkind RJ, Heringlake CB (1973) Mandibular flexure in opening and closing movements. J Prosthet Dent 30:134–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(73)90046-2 [DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(73)90046-2]
  8. Omar R, Wise MD (1981) Mandibular flexure associated with muscle force applied in the retruded axis position. J Oral Rehabil 8:209–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1981.tb00495.x [DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1981.tb00495.x]
  9. Gates GN, Nicholls JI (1981) Evaluation of mandibular arch width change. J Prosthet Dent 46:385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90443-1 [DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90443-1]
  10. Richter EJ (1999) Prostheses in the mandible. The in-vivo measurements of mandibular deformation and the consequences for implant-anchored suprastructures. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 109:116–134 [PMID: 10078042]
  11. Regli CP, Kelly EK (1967) The phenomenon of decreased mandibular arch width in opening movements. J Prosthet Dent 17:49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(67)90050-9 [DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(67)90050-9]
  12. Shinkai RS, Canabarro Sde A, Schmidt CB, Sartori EA (2004) Reliability of a digital image method for measuring medial mandibular flexure in dentate subjects. J Appl Oral Sci 12:358–362. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572004000400020 [DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572004000400020]
  13. Keul C, Guth JF (2020) Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig 24:735–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2 [DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2]
  14. Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2016) A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent 55:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002]
  15. Schmidt A, Klussmann L, Wostmann B, Schlenz MA (2020) Accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions in patients: an update. J Clin Med 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030688
  16. Kamimura E, Tanaka S, Takaba M, Tachi K, Baba K (2017) In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques. PLoS One 12:e0179188. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179188 [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179188]
  17. DIN - German Institute for Standardization (2002) Rolling bearings - balls for rolling bearings and general industrial use
  18. International Organization for Standardization (2014) Rolling bearings - balls - Part 1: Steel balls
  19. Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J (2016) Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 47:343–349. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a35524 [DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a35524]
  20. International Organization for Standardization (1994) Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results — Part 1: General principles and definitions
  21. Kühnel S-M, Krebs D (2006) Statistics for the social sciences. Basics, methods, applications. Rowohlt, Hamburg
  22. Kameyama A, Asami M, Noro A, Abo H, Hirai Y, Tsunoda M (2011) The effects of three dry-field techniques on intraoral temperature and relative humidity. J Am Dent Assoc 142:274–280. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0166 [DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0166]
  23. Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16:11–21 [PMID: 23641661]
  24. Passos L, Meiga S, Brigagao V, Street A (2019) Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: An in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 22:307–319 [PMID: 31840139]
  25. Aswani K, Wankhade S, Khalikar A, Deogade S (2020) Accuracy of an intraoral digital impression: a review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 20:27–37. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_327_19 [DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_327_19]
  26. Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109:121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 [DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1]
  27. Fischman B (1990) The rotational aspect of mandibular flexure. J Prosthet Dent 64:483–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90049-i [DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90049-i]
  28. De Marco TJ, Paine S (1974) Mandibular dimensional change. J Prosthet Dent 31:482–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(74)90169-3 [DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(74)90169-3]
  29. Fischman BM (1976) The influence of fixed splints on mandibular flexure. J Prosthet Dent 35:643–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(76)90321-8 [DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(76)90321-8]
  30. Prasad M, Hussain MZ, Shetty SK, Kumar TA, Khaur M, George SA, Dalwai S (2013) Median mandibular flexure at different mouth opening and its relation to different facial types: a prospective clinical study. J Nat Sci Biol Med 4:426–430. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-9668.117028 [DOI: 10.4103/0976-9668.117028]
  31. Canabarro Sde A, Shinkai RS (2006) Medial mandibular flexure and maximum occlusal force in dentate adults. Int J Prosthodont 19:177–182 [PMID: 16602367]
  32. Custodio W, Gomes SG, Faot F, Garcia RC, Del Bel Cury AA (2011) Occlusal force, electromyographic activity of masticatory muscles and mandibular flexure of subjects with different facial types. J Appl Oral Sci 19:343–349. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572011005000008 [DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572011005000008]
  33. Wolf L, Bergauer B, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE (2019) Three-dimensional evaluation of mandibular deformation during mouth opening. Int J Comput Dent 22:21–27 [PMID: 30848251]
  34. Hobkirk JA, Schwab J (1991) Mandibular deformation in subjects with osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:319–328 [PMID: 1813399]
  35. Abdel-Latif HH, Hobkirk JA, Kelleway JP (2000) Functional mandibular deformation in edentulous subjects treated with dental implants. Int J Prosthodont 13:513–519 [PMID: 11203678]
  36. Al-Sukhun J, Kelleway J (2007) Biomechanics of the mandible: Part II. Development of a 3-dimensional finite element model to study mandibular functional deformation in subjects treated with dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22:455–466 [PMID: 17622013]
  37. Chen DC, Lai YL, Chi LY, Lee SY (2000) Contributing factors of mandibular deformation during mouth opening. J Dent 28:583–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00041-5 [DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00041-5]

MeSH Term

Computer-Aided Design
Dental Arch
Dental Impression Materials
Dental Impression Technique
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Mandible
Models, Dental

Chemicals

Dental Impression Materials
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0digitalimpressionsconventional±μmdeformationmouthopeningmandibularSMOstudyimpressionreferenceresultspresentMMO-SMOpossibleusingintraoralscannercomparisonaidMMOmeasuringaccuracy17significantdifferencesBasedrelatedOBJECTIVES:DuepartlystronglydifferingliteratureaiminvestigatemandibleIOSMATERIALSANDMETHODS:Foursteelspheresreversiblylutedn=50metallicmaximumTwoTrios3slightlyImpregumtakenstructurealreadyknownDifferencedeviationscalculatedFurthermoreanglenormalvectorstwoconstructedplanesmeasuredStatisticalanalysisperformedSPSS25RESULTS:Deviationslineardistancesranged-1378191613290286052CONCLUSIONS:detectedregardratherwithintoleranceCLINICALRELEVANCE:observedlevelpreviouslyassumedTherewithdentaltechniquesthereforereconsideredElasticjawrevisited-aclinicalClinicalDentaltechniqueDigitaldentistryDimensionalmeasurementFull-archMandibularprosthesis

Similar Articles

Cited By