Authors : Reshma Raju

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4yss7b4v

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3y2eumrw

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24OCT148

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Aim: To compare and evaluate the reliability and validity of different thicknesses of Occlusal Contact Registration Strips (OCRS) under simulated occlusal load.  Settings and Design: In-Vitro Comparative Study  Materials and Methods: Articulated epoxy resin dental models obtained from completely dentulous patients were interposed with occlusal contact registration strip of various thicknesses and subjected to constant axial compressive load using universal testing machine. The photographs of consistent registration marks were subjectively assessed using a computer software.  Statistical Analysis Used: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and post hoc mean multiple comparison using Dunnett T3 test.  Results: The thinnest occlusal registration strip used in this study registered the highest average number of markings with a borderline statistically significant difference (P=0.06). The highest average area of markings was registered by the thickest strip, which had a near marginal significance (P=0.09), whereas the lowest average area was produced by the thinnest strip which was statistically significant (P=0.03).  Conclusion: There exists a relationship between the thickness of an occlusal contact registration strip, the number and the area of the marks registered. The average number of marks registered was inversely proportional to the thickness of the occlusal indicator. Hence, the thinner the occlusal contact registration strip, the more reliable is the occlusal contact registration. The average area of occlusal contact registration mark varies proportionately to its thickness. Hence, the thickest occlusal contact registration strips were more valid for marking occlusal contacts.

Keywords : Occlusal Contact Registration Strips, Occlusion, Mark Area, Reliability, Validity.

References :

1. Millstein P, Maya A. An evaluation of occlusal contact marking indicators: A descriptive quantitative method. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132:1280-6.
2. Sarocoglu A, Ozpinar B. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of occlusal indicator sensitivity. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(5):522-6.
3. Babu RR, Nayar SV. Occlusal indicators: A review. J Ind Prosthodont Soc 2007;7(4):170-4.
4. Panigrahi D, Ashish S, Patil A, Patel G. Occlusion and occlusal indicating materials. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2015;1(4):23-6.
5. Toledo MF, Joias RP, Marques-Iasi YS, Neves AC, Rode SM. Thickness and marking quality of different occlusal contact registration strips. J Appl Oral Sci 2014;22(6):516-21.
6. Schelb E, Kaiser DA, Brukl CE. Thickness and marking characteristics of occlusal registration strips. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54(1):122-6.
7. Halprein GC, Halprein AR, Norling BK. Thickness, strength, and plastic deformation of occlusal registration strips. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48(5):575-8.
8. Malta Barbosa J, Urtula AB, Hirata R, Carames J. Thickness evaluation of articulating papers and foils. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017;00:1-3.
9. Mitchem JA, Katona TR, Moser EAS. Does the presence of an occlusal indicator product affect the contact forces between full dentitions? J Oral Rehabil 2017;44:791-9.
10. Carey JP, Craig M, Kerstein RB, Radke J. Determining a relationship between applied occlusal load and articulating paper mark area. Open Dent J 2007;1:1-7.
11. Vallon D, Nilner M, Kopp S. Assessment of occlusal interferences. J Oral Rehabil 1989;16:279-86.
12. Korioth TWP. Number and location of occlusal contacts in intercuspal position. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64(2):206-10.
13. Al-Nimri KS, Bataineh AB, Abo-Farha S. Functional occlusal patterns and their relationship to static occlusion. Angle Orthod 2010;80(1):65-71.
14. Riise C, Ericsson SG. A clinical study of the distribution of occlusal tooth contacts in the intercuspal position at light and hard pressure in adults. J Oral Rehabil 1983;10:473-80.
15. Millstein PL. A method to determine occlusal contact and noncontact areas: Preliminary report. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52(1):106-10.
16. Gazit E, Fitzig S, Lieberman MA. Reproducibility of occlusal marking techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55(4):505-9.
17. Carossa S, Lojacono A, Schierano G, Pera P. Evaluation of occlusal contacts in the dental laboratory: influence of strip thickness and operator experience. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13(3):201-4.
18. Brizuela- Velasco A, Alvarez- Arenal A, Ellakuria- Echevarria J, Rio-Highsmith J, Santamaria –Arrieta G, Martin-Blanco N. Influence of articulating paper thickness on occlusal contacts registration: a preliminary report. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28(4):360- 2.
19. Baba K, Tsukiyama Y, Clark GT. Reliability, validity, and utility of various occlusal measurement methods and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(1):83-9.