title: Morphological Symmetry of Maxillary Anterior Teeth before and after Prosthodontic Planning: Comparison between Conventional and Digital Diagnostic Wax-Ups.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of different prosthodontic planning methods on the morphological symmetry of maxillary anterior teeth.
  
  
  METHODS
  In 13 patients receiving fixed prosthodontic treatment, dental models were obtained from the Oral Health Centre of Western Australia. Two forms of diagnostic prosthodontic planning were executed: conventional wax-up and digital wax-up. The asymmetry was evaluated at two levels: tooth morphological asymmetry (TMA) and anterior segment morphological asymmetry (ASMA). For the TMA, the labial surface of each anterior tooth was superimposed on a mirror image of the contralateral tooth. The ASMA involved superimposition of the combined labial surface of all the anterior teeth on one side on the mirror image of the combined labial surface of the contralateral side. For each asymmetry, the discrepancies in the form of 3D Euclidean distances were calculated and statistically evaluated by the Kruskal-Wallis test (p = 0.05).
  
  
  RESULTS
  At the TMA level, the digital wax-up models had significantly less asymmetry (p < 0.00) than the pre-treatment and conventional wax-up models. The pre-treatment and conventional wax-up models had similar asymmetry (p = 0.35). However, at the ASMA level, the difference between the models was insignificant (p > 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study, the single tooth symmetry had improved after the digital wax-up. However, the conventional wax-up had a minimal impact on single tooth symmetry. ASMA was minimally affected by the two wax-ups.
authors.affiliation: Restorative Section, Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
authors.forename: Jaafar
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Abduo
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D008297:Male; D003765:Models, Dental; D011476:Prosthodontics / Q000379:methods*
references.citation: J Oral Rehabil. 2006 Jun;33(6):430-5
references.pmid: 16671989
references.citation: J Prosthet Dent. 1980 Mar;43(3):254-7
references.pmid: 6928193
references.citation: Int J Prosthodont. 2008 Nov-Dec;21(6):521-3
references.pmid: 19149070
references.citation: World J Orthod. 2010 Fall;11(3):211-20
references.pmid: 20877729
references.citation: Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2013 Sep;34(3):260-6
references.pmid: 23877240
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Dec;132(6):748-53
references.pmid: 18068592
references.citation: Int J Prosthodont. 1994 Sep-Oct;7(5):410-7
references.pmid: 7802908
references.citation: J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013 Oct;25(5):295-304
references.pmid: 24148978
references.citation: Eur J Oral Sci. 2005 Aug;113(4):333-40
references.pmid: 16048526
references.citation: J Dent. 2012 Jul;40(7):571-6
references.pmid: 22465875
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 May;143(5):658-64
references.pmid: 23631967
references.citation: Dent Mater J. 2012 Feb 3;31(1):40-6
references.pmid: 22277604
references.citation: Int J Dent. 2014;2014:783948
references.pmid: 24817888
references.citation: J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004;16(1):7-16; discussion 17-8
references.pmid: 15259539
references.citation: Dent Clin North Am. 2007 Apr;51(2):419-31, ix
references.pmid: 17532920
references.citation: Biomed Eng Online. 2013 May 31;12:49
references.pmid: 23721330
references.citation: Braz Oral Res. 2009 Jul-Sep;23(3):230-5
references.pmid: 19893955
references.citation: Med Princ Pract. 2015;24 Suppl 1:3-13
references.pmid: 25427777
references.citation: J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Apr;113(4):310-5
references.pmid: 25682531
references.citation: Int J Prosthodont. 2010 Nov-Dec;23(6):513-20
references.pmid: 21209985
references.citation: Br Dent J. 2008 May 10;204(9):505-11
references.pmid: 18469768
references.citation: Dent Clin North Am. 2001 Jan;45(1):143-54
references.pmid: 11210692