ABSTRACT
Communication between the clinician and the technician has been an ongoing problem in dentistry. To improve the issue, a dental software application has been developed--the Virtual Facebow App. It is an alternative to the traditional analog facebow, used to orient the maxillary cast in mounting. Comparison data of the two methods indicated that the digitized virtual facebow provided increased efficiency in mounting, increased accuracy in occlusion, and lower cost. Occlusal accuracy, lab time, and total time were statistically significant (P<.05). The virtual facebow provides a novel alternative for cast mounting and another tool for clinician-technician communication.
Subject(s)
Dental Articulators , Dental Occlusion , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/methods , Jaw Relation Record/instrumentation , User-Computer Interface , Communication , Dental Articulators/economics , Dental Implants , Dental Impression Technique/economics , Dental Technicians , Dentists , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/economics , Interprofessional Relations , Models, Dental/economics , Time FactorsSubject(s)
Dental Articulators/standards , Dental Occlusion , Jaw Relation Record/instrumentation , Dental Articulators/economics , Dental Impression Technique , Dental Prosthesis Design , Dental Technicians , Dentists , Equipment Design , Humans , Interprofessional Relations , Laboratories, Dental/economics , Laboratories, Dental/standards , Technology, Dental/economics , Technology, Dental/instrumentation , Technology, Dental/standards , Time FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Although the use of an arbitrary facebow and a full-sized articulator can reduce laboratory errors, many dentists do not use a facebow routinely because the procedure seems to be both intricate and time consuming. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate four earpiece-type facebows and the Snow facebow and to compare the time required for registration, the ease of manipulation, and cost-benefit considerations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five dentists who routinely used only the Snow facebow were asked, after a brief explanation, to perform registrations with the Snow facebow and four new-generation, earpiece-type facebows. The time required for each facebow registration was recorded. Dentists were also asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning ease of manipulation and cost-benefit factors. RESULTS: The Quick facebow was the facebow of choice of most of the dentists because of its favorable design and usage characteristics and cost-benefit ratio. The Artex 3-D facebow proved to be both the easiest and the fastest to manipulate. The Spring-bow and the Whip-Mix Quickmount were next in rank, and the Snow facebow scored the lowest. CONCLUSION: The use of earpiece-type facebows is both simple and fast, and practitioners judged this type of facebow to be superior to the Snow facebow.
Subject(s)
Dental Articulators , Dental Prosthesis Design , Jaw Relation Record/instrumentation , Attitude of Health Personnel , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Dental Articulators/economics , Dental Occlusion , Dental Prosthesis Design/economics , Dentists , Equipment Design , Humans , Time FactorsABSTRACT
This paper looks at how articulators can be of value in everyday NHS practice. A variation on the conventional classification of articulators is suggested with advice provided for the practitioner who wants to enhance his or her restorative work without immediately investing in high cost equipment. It is argued that rather than prolong chairside time, for specific types of treatment the use of an appropriate articulator and facebow can not only enhance the quality of the completed restoration, but also save on chairside time.