The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 132, No 9, 1280-1286.
© 2001 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MILLSTEIN, P.
Right arrow Articles by MAYA, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by MILLSTEIN, P.
Right arrow Articles by MAYA, A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Esthestics

COSMETIC & RESTORATIVE CARE

JADA Continuing Education

An evaluation of occlusal contact marking indicators

A descriptive quantitative method



PHILIP MILLSTEIN, D.M.D., M.S. and ALVARO MAYA, D.M.D., M.S.D.

Background. Dentistry needs an accurate means of recording occlusal contacts. The authors undertook a study to evaluate the accuracy of occlusal contact marking indicators and the reproducibility of their results.

Methods. The authors recorded occlusal contact areas using occlusal indicators made of paper, film and silk. They studied 10 indicators by testing them on articulator-mounted, impact-resistant casts and measuring the surface area of the resultant contact marks made on impact using a video camera, a frame grabber and a computer-linked image analyzer.

Results. All indicators differed in surface area markings between and within groups. The indicator’s thickness and color and the material from which it was made separately and interactively had an effect on the size of the markings. Measurements were evaluated at a P = .05 significance level. The authors used Bonferroni-adjusted cutoffs when computing post hoc pairwise comparisons. The data were grouped into four categories: descriptive statistics, comparison of indicators by surface area marked, indicator thickness and repeatability.

Conclusions. Indicators vary, and their markings may not be repeatable even when they are used alike. Further study is required, as is the development of an indicator measuring standard.

Clinical Implications. Indicators are used to determine occlusal disharmony and to establish occlusal harmony. Since the accuracy of the markings can be questioned, the interpretation of the markings may be correct but the accuracy of the markings themselves may be misleading.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2001 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.