Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 28, 2025
Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
Comparison of the performance of various virtual articulator mounting procedures: a self-controlled clinical study
Honglei Lin1, Yu Pan1, Xia Wei1
1Fujian Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & Fujian Provincial Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterial & Stomatological Key Lab of Fujian College and University, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, 88 Jiaotong Road, Fuzhou, 350004, Fujian, China.
Objectives:
This clinical study aimed to compare the performance of various virtual articulator (VA) mounting procedures in the participants' natural head position (NHP).
Materials And Methods:
Fourteen participants with acceptable dentitions and jaw relationships were recruited in this study registered in the Clinical Trials Registry (#NCT05512455; August 2022). A virtual facebow was designed for virtual mounting and hinge axis measurement. Intraoral scans were obtained, and landmarks were placed on each participant's face to register the horizontal plane in NHP. Six virtual mounting procedures were performed for each participant. The average facebow group (AFG) used an indirect digital procedure by using the average facebow record. The average mounting group (AMG) aligned virtual arch models to VA's average occlusal plane. The smartphone facial scan group (SFG) and professional facial scan group (PFG) used facial scan images with Beyron points and horizontal landmarks, respectively. The cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan group (CTG) used the condyle medial pole, and horizontal landmarks were applied. The kinematic facebow group (KFG) served as the control group, and a direct digital procedure was applied using a kinematic digital facebow and the 3D skull model. Deviations of the reference plane and the hinge axis between the KFG and other groups were calculated. The inter-observer variability in virtual mounting software operation was then evaluated using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) test.
Results:
In virtual condylar center deviations, the CTG had the lowest condylar deviations. The AFG showed larger condylar deviations than PFG, SFG, and CTG. There was no statistically significant difference between the AFG and the AMG and between the PFG and the SFG. In reference plane deviations, the AMG showed the largest angular deviation (8.23 ± 3.29°), and the AFG was 3.89 ± 2.25°. The angular deviations of PFG, SFG, and CTG were very small (means of each group < 1.00°), and there was no significant difference among them. There was no significant difference between the researchers, and the ICC test showed moderate to excellent reliability for the virtual condylar center and good to excellent reliability for the reference plane in the operation of the virtual mounting software.
Conclusions:
CBCT scan provided the lowest hinge axis deviation in virtual mounting compared to average mounting, facebow record, and facial scans. The performance of the smartphone facial scanner in virtual mounting was similar to that of the professional facial scanner. Direct virtual mounting procedures using horizontal landmarks in NHP accurately recorded the horizontal plane.
Clinical Relevance:
Direct digital procedures can be reliably used for virtual articulator mounting. The use of a smartphone facial scanner provides a suitable and radiation-free option for clinicians.
