The IRMA Community
Newsletters
Research IRM
Click a keyword to search titles using our InfoSci-OnDemand powered search:
|
The Limitations of Static Traditional Occlusal Indicators Compared to the Advantages of Quantifiable Dynamic Occlusal Indicators
Abstract
The traditional occlusal indicators used in dental practice are articulation papers, Shim-stock foils, elastomeric impression materials, and occlusal wax strips. These static dental materials have been widely believed to have occlusal force descriptive capability. However, modern material studies are challenging the widespread belief that occlusal indicator materials can measure differing occlusal force levels. Chapter two evaluates the force reporting limitations of these static occlusal indicators, and discusses how clinicians subjectively interpret their appearance characteristics to determine differing occlusal force levels. This chapter then compares these non-digital occlusal indicators to the T-Scan computerized occlusal analysis technology, that records and displays precise, quantifiable, relative occlusal force variances, and occlusal contact timing sequences. This digital data aids the clinician in making a more accurate occlusal analysis, and can guide the clinician in the correction of occlusal contact force and timing abnormalities, thereby eliminating the subjectivity that is inherent with traditional occlusal indicator use. To further support the superiority of digital occlusal analysis with the T-Scan technology, a systematic review that compared the many static, non-digital occlusal indicators to quantifiable dynamic digital occlusal indicators is included, as is an articulating paper/foil/T-Scan comparative analysis. A recently published systematic review that evaluated occlusal contacts during Maximum Intercuspation with differing occlusal indicators (both traditional and digital) is also described. Next, this chapter details the diagnostic occlusal capabilities of the T-Scan's digital force and timing data by presenting 2 separate studies that compared measured closure and excursive occlusal contact force and timing parameters in orthodontic and non-orthodontic young adults. A final commentary describes the clinical pitfalls of using maximally invasive Subjective Interpretation to choose occlusal contacts for adjustment, instead of employing minimally invasive T-Scan-guided occlusal contact selection. This last section clearly outlines to the reader that both patients and dentists markedly benefit from implementing the T-Scan 10 occlusal measurement technology.
Related Content
|
Robert B. Kerstein.
© 2025.
106 pages.
|
|
Sarah Qadeer.
© 2025.
80 pages.
|
|
Bernd Koos, Robert B. Kerstein.
© 2025.
90 pages.
|
|
Robert Podoloff, Mike Harty.
© 2025.
136 pages.
|
|
Mark Piper.
© 2025.
150 pages.
|
|
Diego F. Tatis.
© 2025.
198 pages.
|
|
John Radke.
© 2025.
114 pages.
|
|
|