Evaluation of Cast Re‐Orientation on a Dental Surveyor Using Three Tripod Techniques: A Survey and In Vitro Study

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics 2018-10, Vol.27 (8), p.700-707
• Main Authors: Sayed, Mohammed E., Busaily, Idris A., Nahari, Rana J., Hakami, Ruaa O., Maashi, Sami M., Ramireddy, Naveen R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Attitude of Health Personnel; cast survey; Cast tripod; Dental Casting Technique - instrumentation; Dentistry; Denture Design; Denture, Partial, Removable; education levels; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; reorientation accuracy; RPD diagnosis; RPD treatment planning; Statistical analysis; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12581

Purpose To survey different educational levels (i.e., students, interns, technicians, and prosthodontic faculty) with regard to their opinions, attitudes, and adoption of three selected tripod techniques. The study will also investigate the accuracy of these techniques to reposition casts on the dental surveyor in anterio‐posterior (AP) and lateral directions at both technique and educational levels. Materials and Methods Tripod points, scored lines, and cemented post tripod techniques were used in this study. Three Kennedy class II modification I stone casts, duplicated from a standard cast, were assigned to each of the tripod techniques. The tilt angles of all casts were set on the dental surveyor to 10° (control angle) in AP and lateral directions using a digital angle gauge with an accuracy of 0.2°. The casts were tripoded accordingly. A total of 243 participants were involved in this study. Participants were first asked to remount the three casts on three different dental surveyors using the tripod technique noted on each cast. Questionnaires were then given to each participant in an individual interview setting; this assured a 100% response rate. The angle differences were calculated. All data were coded and entered into an Excel Spreadsheet file. Statistical analyses were performed using a paired Chi‐square, Wilcoxon Matched‐pairs, ANOVA, and Tukey post hoc tests at 5% level of significance. Results No significant difference was found between the educational levels relative to the responses to technique demands, sensitivity, and time required for reorientation (p = 0.08202, 0.8108, 0.6874, respectively); however, the majority of respondents reported low technique demands, low sensitivity, and time saving for technique C in comparison to techniques A and B. Significant differences were noted among the educational levels in response to preference and adoption questions (p = 0.0035 and 0.0015, respectively). The highest percentage of faculty chose technique A for inclusion into the academic curriculum. Wilcoxon Matched‐pairs test revealed that technique C was the least difficult and most practical (p = 0.0001, 0.0427, respectively). One‐way ANOVA revealed significance in angle differences from the set position for technique A in lateral tilt and techniques A and B in AP tilt (p = 0.0466, 0.0194, 0.0424, respectively). A comparison of positivity (overtilt) and negativity (undertilt) between the three techniques in lateral and AP tilts using Chi‐square t