J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci.  2018 Sep;34(3):147-156. 10.14368/jdras.2018.34.3.147.

Considerations in the reliability of occlusal indicators and occlusal contact marks

• Kim CH
• Kim DG
• Ko KH
• Huh YH
• Cho LL
• Park CJ

• KMID: 2422633
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2018.34.3.147

Abstract

On the reliability of occlusal contact marks with occlusal indicators, it must be important to consider the affecting results of using methods. With affecting the accuracy and validity of results, there are many variables such as thickness and material of indicator, occlusal force, number of usage and etc. Nevertheless, researches on the occlusal contact marks have limited to focusing thickness of indicators and occlusal force. For the control of variables, it is clinically recommended to do use new indicators in every trial and to secure dry condition and to use thinner ones. In addition, alternatives might be helpful to understand more appropriate results.

Keyword

occlusal contact; occlusal indicator; reliability; accuracy; validity

MeSH Terms

Bite Force
Reproducibility of Results

Reference

References

1. Dawson PE. Functional occlusion:from TMJ to smile design. 1st ed;Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences;2006. p. 394–417.

2. McNeill C. Science and practice of occlusion. 1st ed. Illinois: Quintessence Publishing;1997. p. 404–18.

3. Okeson JP. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. 2014; 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences;443–56.

4. Zuccari AG, Oshida Y, Okamura M, Paez CY, Moore BK. Bulge ductility of several occlusal contact measuring paper-based sheets. Biomed Mater Eng. 1997; 7:265–70. PMID: 9408578.

5. Saraçoğlu A, Ozpinar B. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of occlusal indicator sensitivity. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88:522–6. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.129064. PMID: 12474003.

6. Sharma A, Rahul GR, Poduval ST, Shetty K, Gupta B, Rajora V. History of materials used for recording static and dynamic occlusal contact marks:a literature review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013; 5:e48–53. DOI: 10.4317/jced.50680. PMID: 24455051. PMCID: PMC3892230.

7. Forrester SE, Presswood RG, Toy AC, Pain MT. Occlusal measurement method can affect SEMG activity during occlusion. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38:655–60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02205.x. PMID: 21314708.

8. Halperin GC, Halperin AR, Norling BK. Thickness, strength, and plastic deformation of occlusal registration strips. J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 48:575–8. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(82)90367-5. PMID: 6958865.

9. Carossa S, Lojacono A, Schierano G, Pera P. Evaluation of occlusal contacts in the dental laboratory:influence of strip thickness and operator experience. Int J Prosthodont. 2000; 13:201–4. PMID: 11203632.

10. Brizuela-Velasco A, Álvarez-Arenal Á, Echevarria J, del Río-Highsmith J, Santamaría-Arrieta G, Martín-Bianco N. Influence of articulating paper thickness on occlusal contacts registration:a preliminary report. Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28:360–2. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4112. PMID: 26218017.

11. Millstein P, Maya A. An evaluation of occlusal contact marking indicators:a descriptive quantitative method. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132:1280–6. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0373. PMID: 11665355.

12. Schelb E, Kaiser DA, Brukl CE. Thickness and marking characteristics of occlusal registration strips. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 54:122–6. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(85)80086-X. PMID: 3860648.

13. Carey JP, Craig M, Kerstein RB, Radke J. Determining a relationship between applied occlusal load and articulating paper mark area. Open Dent J. 2007; 1:1–7. DOI: 10.2174/1874210600701010001. PMID: 19088874. PMCID: PMC2581523.

14. Saad MN, Weiner G, Ehrenberg D, Weiner S. Effects of load and indicator type upon occlusal contact markings. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008; 85:18–22. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30910. PMID: 17618516.

15. Reiber T, Fuhr K, Hartmann H, Leicher D. Recording occlusal indicators. Introduction to occlusal surface materials and roughness. ZWR. 1989; 98:756–61. PMID: 2639556.

16. Qadeer S, Kerstein R, Kim RJ, Huh JB, Shin SW. Relationship between articulation paper mark size and percentage of force measured with computerized occlusal analysis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012; 4:7–12. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.1.7. PMID: 22439094. PMCID: PMC3303923.

17. Kerstein RB, Radke J. Clinician accuracy when subjectively interpreting articulating paper markings. Cranio. 2014; 32:13–23. DOI: 10.1179/0886963413Z.0000000001. PMID: 24660642.

18. Sutter BA. A digital poll of dentists testing the accuracy of paper mark subjective interpretation. Cranio. 2017; 9:1–8. DOI: 10.1080/08869634.2017.1362786. PMID: 28792294.

19. Reiber T, Fuhr K, Hartmann H, Leicher D. Recording pattern of occlusal indicators. I. Influence of indicator thickness, pressure, and surface morphology. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1989; 44:90–3. PMID: 2598875.

20. Anderson GC, Schulte JK, Aeppli DM. Reliability of the evaluation of occlusal contacts in the intercuspal position. J Prosthet Dent. 1993; 70:320–3. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90215-A. PMID: 8229882.

21. Harper KA, Setchell DJ. The use of shimstock to assess occlusal contacts:a laboratory study. Int J Prosthodont. 2002; 15:347–52. PMID: 12170848.

22. Maness WL. Laboratory comparison of three occlusal registration methods for identification of induced interceptive contacts. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65:483–7. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90284-4. PMID: 2066883.

23. Gazit E, Fitzig S, Lieberman MA. Reproducibility of occlusal marking techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1986; 55:505–9. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90188-5. PMID: 3457184.

24. Kerstein RB, Lowe M, Harty M, Radke J. A force reproduction analysis of two recording sensors of a computerized occlusal analysis system. Cranio. 2006; 24:15–24. DOI: 10.1179/crn.2006.004. PMID: 16541841.

25. Throckmorton GS, Rasmussen J, Caloss R. Calibration of T-Scan sensors for recording bite forces in denture patients. J Oral Rehabil. 2009; 36:636–43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01978.x. PMID: 19602099.

26. Cerna M, Ferreira R, Zaror C, Navarro P, Sandoval P. Validity and reliability of the T-Scan®III for measuring force under laboratory conditions. J Oral Rehabil. 2015; 42:544–51. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12284. PMID: 25727489.

27. Augusti D, Augusti G, Re D, Dellavia C, Giannì AB. Effect of different dental articulating papers on SEMG activity during maximum clenching. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2015; 25:612–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.04.006. PMID: 25956545.

28. Helms RB, Katona TR, Eckert GJ. Do occlusal contact detection products alter the occlusion? J Oral Rehabil. 2012; 39:357–63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02277.x. PMID: 22211464.

29. Toledo MF, Jóias RP, Marques-Iasi YS, Neves AC, Rode Sde M. Thickness and marking quality of different occlusal contact registration strips. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014; 22:516–21. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720140117. PMID: 25591020. PMCID: PMC4307765.

30. Mitchem JA, Katona TR, Moser EAS. Does the presence of an occlusal indicator product affect the contact forces between full dentitions? J Oral Rehabil. 2017; 44:791–9. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12543. PMID: 28681442.

31. Korioth TW. Number and location of occlusal contacts in intercuspal position. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64:206–10. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90180-K. PMID: 2202820.

32. Malta Barbosa J, Urtula AB, Hirata R, Caramês J. Thickness evaluation of articulating papers and foils. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30:70–2. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12343. PMID: 29105257.