Abstract
Contact intensity is a significant factor in immoveable implant restorations. This study visually compares the use of four occlusal contact indicators one of which measures contact intensity and surface area in a single subject. The need for an occlusal contact indicator that can be used with fixed implant restorations is examined. Three contact indicators used in practice are visually compared to a novel system where pressure sensitive information and surface area can be evaluated numerically and stored. Findings suggest that intensity and surface area should be measured upon implant placement. Limitations of this observational study are discussed. Directions for future research and more systematic study are offered
Author Contributions
Copyright© 2022
Millstein Philip, et al.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding Interests:
Citation:
Introduction
Occlusal contacts are proprioceptors which direct the movement of the mandible to the maxilla. They are sensitive to touch It is assumed that implant restorations rely on the surrounding bone and temporo-mandibular joint for proprioception. Implants are immoveable; teeth move
Materials And Methods
This observational study compares four clinically used methods for recording occlusal contacts. Recordings were made using each of four different methods on the same subject who volunteered participation. All recordings were made in office by one clinician (CS) during the same time period. A clinical subject with few restorations was selected and the subject agreed to the procedure along with the right to publish the results. There are no quantitative measurements. Ankylosis is a factor that was not addressed. The recording indicator systems evaluated were: 1. Accufilm (Parkell, Brentwood NY. USA). 2. Blue paper (Bausch, Nashua NH. USA), 3. Primescan (Densply/Serona, Waltham MA. USA), 4. PMscan (Mco, Boston MA. USA). In all procedures the subject was advised on how to close and the procedure was repeated. The subject made one hard closure into or onto the marking surface and the results were recorded and are displayed in (
Discussion
At present there are few measurement systems that record the occlusion and store the information. T Scan (Boston,MA.USA) records occlusal force but does not record occlusal contact or intensity. The effort to align force with contact is unknown. OcclusSence Guide for Digital Occlusion (Bausch: Nashua, NH.USA) also records force along with area. Surface area is dictated by the indicator markings. It does not include intensity and parametric movement. All materials and systems differ as do the recordings. Bite intensity is difficult to record except with the PMscan which also records infra occlusion