The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Interchangeability of Contemporary Semi-adjustable Articulators Used Over Time: An In Vitro Study

Abdulrahman Almalki, Noor Kutkut, Ramzi Althubaitiy, Ali Robaian, Khaled Alzaharni, Evanthia Anadioti

Keywords : Articulators, Interchangeability, Semi adjustable articulators

Citation Information : Almalki A, Kutkut N, Althubaitiy R, Robaian A, Alzaharni K, Anadioti E. Interchangeability of Contemporary Semi-adjustable Articulators Used Over Time: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (9):869-872.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3752

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-12-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study is to investigate the interchangeability of newly acquired, short-term used, and long-term used semi-adjustable articulators. Materials and methods: Metal analogs of partially dentate maxillary and mandibular arches were mounted on twelve semi-adjustable Stratos 300 articulators, divided into three groups based on usage over time: New, short-term used (<2 years), long-term used (>2 years) articulators. Each articulator was calibrated according to manufacturer guidelines, ensuring consistency. Occlusal contact forces were recorded using a T-scan III device with a pressure-mapping sensor. Maximum intercuspation (MIP) contact magnitudes were recorded by two calibrated examiners at 10-second intervals, ensuring reliable data collection across all conditions. Results: In MIP, tooth #9 consistently exhibited the highest contact percentages across all articulator conditions, with percentages of 22.2% in the new articulator, 21.8% in the short-term used articulators, and 21.5% in long-term used articulators, indicating stable contact force distribution. Tooth #12 consistently showed the lowest MIP contact percentages, suggesting minimal occlusal force in this region due to its absence. Contact forces, measured at 10-second intervals, showed no significant differences among the different articulator conditions in MIP (p > 0.01). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the calibrated Stratos 300 semi-adjustable articulator maintained superior accuracy over time. Clinical significance: The study confirms that the calibrated Stratos 300 semi-adjustable articulators provide consistent and accurate occlusal measurements over time, regardless of their usage over time.


PDF Share
  1. The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(5S):e1–e105. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.12.001.
  2. Bellanti ND, Martin KR: The significance of articulator capability. Part II: The prevalence of immediate side shift. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42(3):255–256. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90211-7.
  3. Ettala-Ylitalo UM, Markkanen H, Yli-Urpo A. Occlusal interferences analysed in patients treated with fixed prosthesis four years earlier. J Oral Rehabil 1986;13(5):395–399. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1986.tb01301.x.
  4. Ettala-Ylitalo UM, Markkanen H, Yli-Urpo A. Influence of occlusal interferences on the periodontium in patients treated with fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55(2):252–255. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90355-0.
  5. Kitzis GD, Millstein PL, Nathanson D. Determining the accuracy of articulator interchangeability. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65(6):845–848. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80025-3.
  6. Finger IS, Purcell JP. A review on the selection of an articulator. J La Dent Assoc 1977;35(1):12–17. PMID: 273641.
  7. Price RB, Mansfield WM. Long-term reliability of semi adjustable articulator interchangeability. J Prosthodont 1999;8(4):235–239. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.1999.tb00044.x.
  8. Chung CC, Chai J, Jameson LM. Interchangeability of a semi adjustable articulator. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(5):427–431. PMID: 12066637.
  9. Palaskar JN, Joshi N, Gullapalli P, et al. Comparative evaluation of sagittal inclination of the occlusal plane with Frankfort horizontal plane in facebow transfers to semiadjustable and fully adjustable articulators. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(2):299–304. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.024.
  10. Sutradhar W, Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Uses, accuracy and limitations of semiadjustable articulators in dentistry: A systematic review. Tanta Dental Journal 2019;16(3):121–135. DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_8_19.
  11. Mohamed SE, Schmidt JR, Harrison JD. Articulators in dental education and practice. J Prosthet Dent 1976;36(3):319–325. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(76)90190-6.
  12. Guichet NF. The Denar system and its application in everyday dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1979;23(2):243–257. PMID: 285901.
  13. Doshi KN, Sathe S, Dubey SA, et al. A comprehensive review on virtual articulators. Cureus 2024;16(1):e52554. DOI: 10.7759/cureus. 52554.
  14. Weiner S. Biomechanics of occlusion and the articulator. Dent Clin North Am 1995;39(2):257–284. PMID: 7781826.
  15. Stratos 300. Dental Articulators, Ivoclar. [online] Available from: https://www.ivoclar.com/en_li/products/equipment/stratos-300. [Last accessed November, 2024].
  16. Calibration Procedure Ivoclar* Stratos Articulator. 2012. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v= ielqQS4SZzE&t=184s.
  17. Price RB, Loney RW, Andreou P. Interchangeability of semiadjustable articulators after 2 to 7 years of use. J Prosthodont 2000;9(3):142–147. PMID: 11179465.
  18. Hatzi P, Millstein P, Maya A. Determining the accuracy of articulator interchangeability and hinge axis reproducibility. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85(3):236–245. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2001.109987
  19. Rhee YK, Huh YH, Cho LR, et al. Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7(6):460–467. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460.
  20. Trpevska V, Kovacevska G, Benedeti A, et al. T-scan III system diagnostic tool for digital occlusal analysis in orthodontics-a modern approach. Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki) 2014;35(2):155–160. DOI: 10.2478/prilozi-2014-0020.
  21. Lee JD, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ. An in-vitro evaluation of articulation accuracy for digitally milled models vs conventional gypsum casts. Dent J (Basel) 2022;10(1):11. DOI: 10.3390/dj10010011.
  22. Bendikiene R, Jutas A, Nagys P, et al. Study of mechanical and sanitary properties of artificial cast stone products. Materials (Basel) 2023;16(3):1009. DOI: 10.3390/ma16031009.
  23. Vitti RP, da Silva MAB, Consani RLX, et al. Dimensional accuracy of stone casts made from silicone-based impression materials and three impression techniques. Braz Dent J 2013;24(5):498–502. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201302334.
  24. Knode V, Ludwig B, Hamadeh S, et al. An in vitro comparison of the dimensional stability of four 3D-printed models under various storage conditions. Angle Orthod 2024;94(3):346–352. DOI: 10.2319/081223-557.1.
  25. Maria R, Tan MY, Wong KM, et al. Accuracy of implant analogs in 3D printed resin models. J Prosthodont 2021;30(1):57–64. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13217.
  26. Nocar A, Procházka A, Kloubcová M, et al. A three-year prospective study comparing stereolithography printed models to classical impression and plaster cast models in orthodontic therapy: A 3D Objectification Approach. Appl Sci 2023;13(13):7542. DOI: 10.3390/app13137542.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.