ArticleBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of digital interocclusal records at various protrusive mandibular positions: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of digitally recorded maxillomandibular relationships obtained with two intraoral scanners (Trios 5 and Medit i600) at maximum intercuspal position (MIP) and at various protrusive–vertical mandibular positions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA dentate typodont mounted on a semi-adjustable articulator was positioned at MIP and at six experimental mandibular conditions (2 V, 5 V, 2P + 2 V, 2P + 5 V, 4P + 2 V, and 4P + 5 V). For each mandibular condition and scanner, one polyvinyl siloxane interocclusal record was produced. This record was then scanned 20 times under standardized digital and ambient conditions. A high-accuracy laboratory scanner (Redon Freedom UHD) was used to obtain reference datasets. Four linear distances (D1–D4) between reference markers were measured following marker-based best-fit alignment in Geomagic Control X. Trueness was defined as deviation from the reference measurements, and precision as the variability among repeated scans. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05), and effect sizes were calculated using partial eta squared (η²p).
resultsMandibular position and scanner type were significantly associated with differences in trueness and precision (P < 0.001). Certain vertically separated positions demonstrated lower trueness deviations compared with MIP, whereas protrusive positions showed scanner-dependent variations. A significant interaction was observed between scanner type and mandibular position (P < 0.001).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, mandibular position and scanner type were associated with variations in digital interocclusal recording performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Mandibular position and intraoral scanner selection may influence the accuracy of digital interocclusal records. Inaccuracies in digital bite registration may lead to occlusal discrepancies and require additional intraoral adjustments. Consideration of these factors may assist clinicians when performing digital bite registrations under altered mandibular conditions.
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.