Comparative evaluation of virtual articulators in simulating occlusal contacts: an in vitro study

Virtual articulators have emerged as promising digital tools for simulating jaw movements and occlusal contacts in dentistry. However, few studies have compared the performance of different virtual articulators and their impact on recording occlusal contacts. This study designed to evaluate the effects of various virtual articulators on occlusal contact distribution and morphology and identify the most accurate system. TRIOS 3Shape intraoral scans of lower and upper arches of five dentate patients with digital bite registration on both sides were performed and exported to dental CAD software (3Shape OrthoSystem). The occlusal plane was standardized using three points on 3Shape OrthoAnalyzer. Eight virtual articulators were evaluated during this study in motion: Ivoclar Vivadent, SHUFO Proarch IV, Kavo Protar, 3Shape Generic, Denar Marta 330, ACR (Atex compatible), SAM 2P, and BIO ART A7 Plus. Occlusal contacts were recorded during motions for left, right, retrusive, and protrusive movements. The result of occlusal map was recorded and analyzed by Python code written by the researcher (Ian Code) to capture the information for the number and regions of occlusal contact and convert it to numerical values for comparison. Significant differences were found between articulators in the number and area of occlusal contact distributions. The 3Shape Generic articulator showed the highest number of contact regions with a mean of 19.6 ± 6.8 regions, while the ACR (Atex compatible) articulator showed the lowest number with a mean of 15.8 ± 7.3 regions. The result of contact areas shows the highest area with mean of 32 ± 6.4 mm² in the Ivoclar Vivadent articulator and the lowest area with a mean of 26.6 ± 6.3 mm² in the BIO ART A7 Plus articulator. These findings suggest that the choice of a virtual articulator can significantly influence the representation of occlusal contact regions and area, with potential effects on its implications for planning and treatment outcomes. Dental laboratories and clinicians should be aware of the specific characteristics and limitations of their chosen virtual articulator system and consider these factors when interpreting the results and making decisions in treatment. Future researches consider on validating these findings in clinical application in dentistry by investigation the effect of dynamic and static virtual articulation, this may lead to developing a new virtual articulator that incorporates advanced algorithms and technologies that can improve the accuracy of occlusal contact simulations.