Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 92, Issue 1 , Pages 83-89, July 2004

An in vitro evaluation of the reliability and validity of an electronic pantograph by testing with five different articulators

  • Willy S.W. Chang, BDSc, MS

      Affiliations

    • Former Resident, Advanced Education in Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry USA
  • ,
  • Elaine Romberg, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Professor, Department of Oral Health Care Delivery USA
  • ,
  • Carl F. Driscoll, DMD

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor, Program Director, Advanced Education in Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Dr Carl F. Driscoll Rm 3D08, Baltimore College of Dental Surgery Dental School, University of Maryland 666 W Baltimore St Baltimore, MD 21201 Fax: (410) 706-3028
  • ,
  • Michael J. Tabacco, DDS

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry USA

Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, Dental School, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md

Abstract 

Statement of problem

The degree of reliability and validity of a new electronic pantographic instrument, the Cadiax Compact, has not been established.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the electronic pantograph in calculating condylar settings for 5 different articulators (Denar D5A, Denar Mark II, Whip Mix 8500, Hanau Modular, and Panadent PCH).

Material and methods

Pantograph sensors were mounted to each articulator with custom-made mounting devices. Border movements were made on each articulator with known condylar settings to produce readings at 3-, 5-, and 10-mm condylotrack distances. The condylar settings investigated included horizontal condylar inclination (HCI), immediate mandibular lateral translation (IMLT), progressive mandibular lateral translation (PMLT), top wall, and rear wall. Reliability was assessed by the relative size of standard deviations. Validity was tested with 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey HSD Test (α=.05).

Results

The reliability readings for the condylar settings at the 10-mm condylotrack distance, for the most part, were more consistent than those at the 5-mm distance, which, in turn, were more consistent than those at the 3-mm distance. When there were exceptions to this trend, the differences in standard deviations were very small (0.006 mm for IMLT, 0.03 and 0.12 degrees for HCI). When comparing validity between the condylotrack distances, the smallest deviations, in general, were found at the 10-mm distance, the next smallest at the 5-mm distance, and the largest, at the 3-mm distance for HCI. For PMLT, in general, the 10-mm and 5-mm deviations were smaller than the 3-mm deviation. For IMLT, there was no significant difference between the 3-, 5-, and 10-mm deviations. In analyzing validity between the articulators, the smallest deviations from the preset values, in general, were found with the Denar Mark II.

Conclusion

The standard deviations for assessing reliability and the mean deviations for assessing validity were both relatively small in comparison to the average values of the condylar determinants. Therefore, the electronic pantograph was determined to be both reliable and valid.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Presented at the American Academy of Dental Research Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, March 2003.

PII: S0022-3913(04)00226-4

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.011

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 92, Issue 1 , Pages 83-89, July 2004