•  
  •  
 

International Arab Journal of Dentistry

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this clinical pilot study was to compare the condylar parameters (condylar path inclination and Bennett angle) obtained from two different axiographs: a mechanical axiography system and an ultrasonic axigraphy system, and thus to judge the reliability and degree of accuracy of the mechanical axiography compared with the ultrasonic axiography considered as a reference technique.

Methods: Eleven candidates, aged between 20 and 25 years, were selected (n = 11) following strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each individual underwent two axiographic recordings by a single experienced operator. The first one was done with an ultrasonic axiograph, the Arcus Digma II (KaVo Dental GmbH), and the second one with a conventional mechanical axiograph, the Quick axis (F.A.G Dentaire). The right and left condylar parameters measured from the conventional mechanical axiograph condylar tracings were compared, respectively, with the corresponding values displayed on the ultrasonic axiograph screen. The normality of the distribution of the four quantitative variables were evaluated with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Student’s tests for paired samples and Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank tests were used to analyse the data (α = .05).

Results: A statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was found between the values obtained by ultrasonic axiography for right and left condylar path inclinations (a mean of 40.36° ± 6.05° on the right side and a mean of 40.36° ± 8.00° on the left side) compared with those obtained by mechanical axiography (a mean of 48.45° ± 7.71° on the right side and a mean of 49.55° ± 8.37° on the left side). And a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was found between the values obtained by ultrasonic axiography for right and left Bennett angles (a mean of 6.09° ± 3.99° on the right side, and a mean of 6.36° ± 4.72° on the left side) compared with those obtained by mechanical axiography (a mean of 8.18° ± 4.62° on the right side, and a mean of 7.73° ± 5.18° on the left side).

Conclusions: With the rise of digital dentistry and within the limitations of this study, conventional mechanical axiography, formerly considered as a reference technique, seems to be less accurate and less reliable compared to ultrasonic axiography, for the individualized measurement of condylar parameters which are intimately linked to the success of any prosthetic treatment. Nonetheless, mechanical axiography will still be used in determining condylar values, but certainly with prudence, caution, and foresight. This axiography will always remain valid as a diagnostic tool for temporomandibular disorders.

Download

Share

COinS