In vitro comparison of digital occlusal analyzers and articulating paper in static and dynamic occlusion
Journal of Dentistry. 2025-11-01; : 106215
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106215
Lire sur PubMed
https://www.bordeaux-neurocampus.fr/12259
King CW(1), Chuy V(2), Laran A(3), d’Incau E(4), Naveau A(5).
Author information:
(1)Private practice, Bordeaux, France. Electronic address:
.
(2)Public Health Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Bordeaux University,
Bordeaux University Hospital, Saint-André Hospital, Bordeaux, France. Electronic
address: .
(3)Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Bordeaux University,
Bordeaux University Hospital, Saint-André Hospital, Bordeaux, France. Electronic
address: .
(4)Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Bordeaux University,
Bordeaux University Hospital, Pellegrin Hospital, Bordeaux, France. Electronic
address: .
(5)Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Bordeaux University,
Bordeaux University Hospital, Saint-André Hospital, Bordeaux, France. Electronic
address: .
INTRODUCTION: Intraoral scanners (IOS) are generally limited to capturing static
occlusion, whereas digital occlusal analyzers and mandibular tracking devices
enable dynamic occlusion recording. To date, no direct comparison has been made
between these technologies and the conventional method, articulating paper.
OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study aimed to compare the performance of one digital
occlusal analyzer and three IOS devices, used alone or in combination with a
mandibular tracking device, against articulating paper under static and dynamic
conditions.
METHODS: Five pairs of plaster models mounted on articulators were analyzed in
maximum intercuspation (MIP), protrusion, and right laterotrusion using eight
protocols: articulating paper, Occlusense, Trios 3, Trios 5, Primescan,
Modjaw-Trios 3, Modjaw-Trios 5, and Modjaw-Primescan. Contact points were
recorded by two evaluators following a standardized protocol, which segmented
dental arches into anatomical zones and classified contacts as identical,
additional, or missing compared with articulating paper. Concordance rates,
dissimilarity types, and intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility were
statistically assessed.
RESULTS: Significant differences were observed among devices. In static
conditions, Trios and Primescan achieved similar concordance but tended to
overgenerate contacts. Occlusense produced fewer false positives but a higher
number of missing contacts. In dynamic conditions, standalone IOS devices
underperformed, particularly during lateral movements. Modjaw-integrated systems
demonstrated the highest concordance, with Modjaw-Trios 3 excelling in both
protrusion and laterotrusion. Reproducibility was high across methods, with
Occlusense showing excellent consistency despite reduced overall accuracy.
CONCLUSION: No digital system fully matched articulating paper. However,
jaw-tracking devices significantly improved dynamic occlusion analysis and may
enhance prosthetic outcomes. Further research involving diverse patient
populations is recommended.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: While IOS and digital occlusal analyzers alone provide
different information compared with articulating paper, integrating them with
jaw-tracking devices significantly improves accuracy in dynamic occlusion.
Clinically, such hybrid digital workflows may enhance the precision of
prosthetic and restorative treatments, though validation in clinical
environments is still needed.
Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106215
PMID: 41198013
Conflict of interest statement: Declaration of competing interest The authors
declare that there’s no financial/personal interest or belief that could affect
their objectivity.