Document Type




Format of Original

6 p.

Publication Date




Source Publication

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Source ISSN



Statement of problem

Little peer-reviewed information is available regarding the accuracy and precision of the occlusal contact reproduction of digitally mounted stereolithographic casts.


The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy and precision of occlusal contacts among stereolithographic casts mounted by digital occlusal registrations.

Material and methods

Four complete anatomic dentoforms were arbitrarily mounted on a semi-adjustable articulator in maximal intercuspal position and served as the 4 different simulated patients (SP). A total of 60 digital impressions and digital interocclusal registrations were made with a digital intraoral scanner to fabricate 15 sets of mounted stereolithographic (SLA) definitive casts for each dentoform. After receiving a total of 60 SLA casts, polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) interocclusal records were made for each set. The occlusal contacts for each set of SLA casts were measured by recording the amount of light transmitted through the interocclusal records. To evaluate the accuracy between the SP and their respective SLA casts, the areas of actual contact (AC) and near contact (NC) were calculated. For precision analysis, the coefficient of variation (CoV) was used. The data was analyzed with t tests for accuracy and the McKay and Vangel test for precision (α=.05).


The accuracy analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the SP and the SLA cast of each dentoform (PPP


For the accuracy evaluation, statistically significant differences were found between the occlusal contacts of all digitally mounted SLA casts groups, with an increase in AC values and a decrease in NC values. For the precision assessment, the CoV values of the AC and NC showed the digitally articulated cast’s inability to reproduce the uniform occlusal contacts.


NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 116, No. 2 (August 2016): 231-236. DOI. © 2016 Elsevier. Used with permission.