A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

comparison of the accuracy of an occlusal plane transfer method between facebow and POP bow systems in asymmetric ear position. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the conventional facebow system and the newly developed POP (PNUD (Pusan National University Dental School) Occlusal Plane) bow system for occlusal plane transfer in asymmetric ear position.

Materials And Methods: Two dentists participated in this study, one was categorized as Experimenter 1 and the other as Experimenter 2 based on their clinical experience with the facebow (1F, 2F) and POP bow (1P, 2P) systems. The vertical height difference between the two ears of the phantom model was set to 3 mm. Experimenter 1 and Experimenter 2 performed the facebow and POP bow systems on the phantom model 10 times each, and the transfer accuracy was analyzed. The accuracy was evaluated by measuring the angle between the reference virtual plane (RVP) of the phantom model and the experimental virtual plane (EVP) of the upper mounting plate through digital superimposition. All data were statistically analyzed using a paired -test ( < .05).

Results: Regardless of clinical experience, the POP bow system (0.53° ± 0.30 (1P) and 0.19° ± 0.18 (2P) for Experimenter 1 and 2, respectively) was significantly more accurate than the facebow system (1.88° ± 0.50 (1F) and 1.34° ± 0.25 (2F), respectively) in the frontal view ( < .05). In the sagittal view, no significant differences were found between the POP bow system (0.92° ± 0.50 (1P) and 0.73° ± 0.42 (2P) for Experimenter 1 and 2, respectively) and the facebow system (0.82° ± 0.49 (1F) and 0.60° ± 0.39 (2F), respectively), regardless of clinical experience ( > .05).

Conclusion: In cases of asymmetric ear position, the POP bow system may transfer occlusal plane information more accurately than the facebow system in the frontal view, regardless of clinical experience.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10625888PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2023.15.5.271DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pop bow
24
occlusal plane
16
facebow system
16
bow system
16
clinical experience
16
facebow pop
12
bow systems
12
asymmetric ear
12
phantom model
12
plane transfer
8

Similar Publications