Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

[FDM printing in the correction of temporary orthopedic structures: a study of adhesive strength and tightness of the joint].

Stomatologiia·2026

Same author

[Clinical aspects of the effect of aligners with a repositioning splint on the temporomandibular joint].

Stomatologiia·2026

Same author

[Correlation analysis between the parameters of the temporomandibular joints and the cervical spine].

Stomatologiia·2025

Same author

[Planning of occlusal load in designing the occlusal surface of posterior teeth based on 3D analysis].

Stomatologiia·2024

Same author

[Study on the pressure on ceramic veneers during cementation].

Stomatologiia·2024

Same author

[Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of 3D TMJ analysis performed by different methods of processing computed tomograms].

Stomatologiia·2024

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 2, 2025

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

Published on: January 28, 2020

[Lower jaw virtual reposition accuracy research].

A N Ryakhovsky¹, M A Muradov¹, V A Erokhin²

¹Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, Moscow, Russia.

Stomatologiia

|August 9, 2022

Summary

This study assessed the accuracy of virtual mandibular repositioning by comparing virtual and real jaw positions. Errors in TMJ separation and combined scanning methods were the most significant factors influencing accuracy.

Keywords:

3D virtual planning LJ position articular gap

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment

Published on: February 23, 2024

Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla

Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla

Published on: October 18, 2021

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 2, 2025

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

Published on: January 28, 2020

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment

Published on: February 23, 2024

Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla

Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla

Published on: October 18, 2021

Area of Science:

Dental imaging and biomechanics.
Orthodontics and maxillofacial surgery.

Background:

Accurate mandibular repositioning is crucial for diagnosing and treating temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders.
Virtual repositioning techniques offer a non-invasive approach but require validation for clinical reliability.

Purpose of the Study:

To evaluate the precision of virtual mandibular repositioning by comparing virtual and actual condyle positions.
To identify key factors contributing to errors in virtual repositioning procedures.

Main Methods:

An experimental human skull model with a movable mandible was used.
Computed tomography (CT) and intraoral scans were combined to create virtual models.
Virtual repositioning was performed, and discrepancies between virtual and actual condyle positions were measured.

Main Results:

The absolute difference in glenoid fossa space between virtual and actual reconstructions ranged from 0.260±0.1862 mm to 0.542±0.3354 mm.
The integral indicator of surface coincidence (q) was 0.296±0.1254 (s.u.).

Conclusions:

The accuracy of virtual mandibular repositioning is influenced by errors in repeated scanning, CBCT, and TMJ separation.
Errors related to combined teeth arch scans, bite scans, and TMJ separation were identified as the most significant contributors to inaccuracies.