title: Comparison of the Kois Dento-Facial Analyzer System with an earbow for mounting a maxillary cast.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The Kois Dento-Facial Analyzer System (KDFA) is used by clinicians to mount maxillary casts and evaluate and treat patients. Limited information is available for understanding whether the KDFA should be considered as an alternative to an earbow.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to evaluate maxillary casts mounted using the KDFA with casts mounted using Panadent's Pana-Mount Facebow (PMF). Both articulation methods were compared against a lateral cephalometric radiograph.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifteen dried human skulls were used. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and 2 maxillary impressions were made of each skull. One cast from each skull was mounted on an articulator by means of the KDFA and the other by using the PMF. A standardized photograph of each articulation was made, and the distance from the articular center to the incisal edge position and the occlusal plane angle were measured. The distance from condylar center to the incisal edge and the occlusal plane angle were measured from cephalometric radiographs. Finally, the 3-dimensional position of each articulation was determined with a Panadent CPI-III. A randomized complete block design analysis of variance (RCBD) and post hoc tests (Tukey-Kramer HSD) (α=.05) were used to evaluate the occlusal plane angle and axis-central incisor distance. A paired 2-sample t test for means (α=.05) was used to compare the X, Y, and Z distance at the right and left condyle.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The KDFA and PMF mounted the maxillary cast in a position that was not statistically different from the skull when comparing the occlusal plane angle (P=.165). Both the KDFA and the PMF located the maxillary central incisor edge position in a significantly different position compared with the skull (P=.001) but were not significantly different from each other. The 3-dimensional location of the maxillary casts varied at the condyles by approximately 9 to 10.3 mm.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The KDFA mounted the maxillary cast in a position that was not statistically different from the PMF when comparing the incisal edge position and the occlusal plane angle. Both the KDFA and the PMF located the maxillary incisal edge position in a significantly different position compared with the anatomic position on dried human skulls.
authors.affiliation: Adjunct Clinical Assistant Professor, Postgraduate Program in Prosthodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wis.
authors.forename: Laura H
authors.initials: LH
authors.lastname: Lux
authors.affiliation: Program Director, Postgraduate Program in Prosthodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wis. Electronic address: geoffrey.thompson@marquette.edu.
authors.forename: Geoffrey A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Thompson
authors.affiliation: Adjunct Clinical Professor, Postgraduate Program in Prosthodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wis.
authors.forename: Kenneth J
authors.initials: KJ
authors.lastname: Waliszewski
authors.affiliation: Assistant Program Director, Postgraduate Program in Prosthodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wis.
authors.forename: Gerald J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Ziebert
mesh_terms: D002508:Cephalometry; D003725:Dental Articulators; D003766:Dental Occlusion; D005145:Face / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D007574:Jaw Relation Record; D008297:Male; D008437:Maxilla / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D003765:Models, Dental; D012886:Skull / Q000033:anatomy & histology