ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Comparative evaluation of virtual articulators in simulating occlusal contacts: an in vitro study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 mm
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.