Clinical Reliability of Occlusal Assessment Techniques: From Articulating Paper to Digital Systems
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Occlusal assessment is a fundamental component of clinical dentistry, guiding restorative procedures, prosthodontic rehabilitation, and overall functional evaluation of the masticatory system. Accurate identification of occlusal contacts and force distribution remains challenging due to the limitations of traditional diagnostic approaches. This literature-based review aims to compare the reliability, validity, and clinical usefulness of conventional occlusal assessment techniques with emerging digital systems. Conventional methods, including articulating paper and shimstock foil, remain widely used but are inherently subjective and operator-dependent, with limited ability to quantify occlusal force. In contrast, digital occlusal analysis systems offer improved visualization, reproducibility, and objective data acquisition; however, they still demonstrate limitations in accurately representing true occlusal force magnitude and clinical significance. Overall, current evidence suggests that while digital technologies enhance diagnostic precision, they should be considered adjunctive tools rather than replacements for conventional clinical assessment.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. Wong King C, Chuy V, Laran A, d'Incau E, Naveau A. In vitro comparison of digital occlusal analyzers and articulating paper in static and dynamic occlusion. J Dent. 2026;164:106215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106215.
2. Reich KM, Tatzber V, Skolka A, Piehslinger E, Lettner S, Kundi M, et al. A comparative study of digital and conventional occlusal indicators: accuracy and reliability of the T-Scan Novus, wax occlusogram, and articulating silk in clinical application. J Dent. 2025;156:105695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105695.
3. Velásquez B, Rodríguez M, Mosquera V, Álvarez E, Chauca L, Mena A. Occlusal analysis in natural dentition: systematic review. Eur J Dent. 2023;17(3):615-622. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1755626.
4. Qadeer S, Kerstein R, Kim RJ, Huh JB, Shin SW. Relationship between articulation paper mark size and percentage of force measured with computerized occlusal analysis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012;4(1):7-12. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.1.7.
5. Manziuc MM, Savu MM, Almăşan O, Leucuţa DC, Tăut M, Ifrim C, et al. Insights into occlusal analysis: articulating paper versus digital devices. J Clin Med. 2024;13(15):4506. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154506.
6. Lei Q, Lin D, Liu Y, Lin K, Huang W, Wu D. Neuromuscular and occlusion analysis to evaluate the efficacy of three splints on patients with bruxism. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):325. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03044-5.
7. Bozhkova T, Musurlieva N, Slavchev D. Comparative study qualitative and quantitative techniques in the study of occlusion. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:1163874. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1163874.
8. Majithia IP, Arora V, Anil Kumar S, Saxena V, Mittal M. Comparison of articulating paper markings and T-Scan III recordings to evaluate occlusal force in normal and rehabilitated maxillofacial trauma patients. Med J Armed Forces India. 2015;71(Suppl 2): S382-S388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2014.09.014.
9. Sutter BA. A digital poll of dentists testing the accuracy of paper mark subjective interpretation. Cranio. 2018;36(6):396-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08869634.2017.1362786.
10. Cowan C. Occlusal records in the production of mounted study casts for tooth wear planning and management. Br Dent J. 2023;234(6):385-392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-5674-3.
11. Sharma A, Rahul GR, Poduval ST, Shetty K, Gupta B, Rajora V. History of materials used for recording static and dynamic occlusal contact marks: a literature review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013;5(1):e48-e53. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.50680.
12. Zhao Z, Wang Q, Li J, Zhou M, Tang K, Chen J, et al. Construction of a novel digital method for quantitative analysis of occlusal contact and force. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02899-y.
13. Wang Q, Zhao Z, Zhou M, Zheng X, An N, Niu L, et al. In vivo evaluation of the reliability and validity of three digital occlusion analysis methods. J Dent. 2022;127:104355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104355.
14. Rovira-Lastra B, Khoury-Ribas L, Flores-Orozco EI, Ayuso-Montero R, Chaurasia A, Martinez-Gomis J. Accuracy of digital and conventional systems in locating occlusal contacts: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;132(1):115-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.06.036.
15. Wang Q, Zhao Z, Li J, Zhao R, Zhou M, Tang K, et al. In vivo evaluation of T-Scan in quantifying occlusal contact. J Oral Rehabil. 2024;51(9):1675-1683. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13732.
16. Revilla-León M, Kois DE, Zeitler JM, Att W, Kois JC. An overview of the digital occlusion technologies: intraoral scanners, jaw tracking systems, and computerized occlusal analysis devices. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35(5):735-744. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13044.
17. Du X, Sun W, Yao C, Gao Y, Hu J, Song K. AI-driven automation of occlusal surface design in digital prosthodontics: a clinically validated workflow. BMC Oral Health. 2026;26(1):513. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-026-07874-x.
18. Levrini L, Deppieri A, Ugas A, Zecca PA, Bocchieri S, Saran S, et al. Comparison of digital and traditional methods for occlusal contact assessment: an experimental cross-sectional study. Appl Sci. 2026;16:132. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16010132.
19. Anandapandian PA, Raza FB, Ar PK, Krishnamoorthy S, Ashok V, Anand Kumar V, et al. Digital occlusal analysis of the impact of natural dentition and different types of rehabilitation on the occlusal force variations: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2025;15(3):534-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.03.006.
20. Gözen M, Güntekin N. Comparison of occlusal force distribution and digital occlusal analysis methods of single posterior implant restorations: an in vivo study. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):795. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06205-w.
21. Sarhan MM, Rady NAE, Khamis MM. Evaluation of interproximal and occlusal contacts of single posterior implant-supported restorations fabricated using different CAD software programs: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;134(6):2246-2255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.11.009.
22. Parker MW. The significance of occlusion in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 1993;37(3):341-351.
23. Bozhkova TP. Comparative study of occlusal contact marking indicators. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2020;62(1):180-184. https://doi.org/10.3897/folmed.62.e48018.
24. Qadeer S, Türp JC. Number of occlusal contacts during maximum intercuspation in dentate adults: a systematised review. J Oral Rehabil. 2023;50(7):617-626. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13451.
25. Esposito R, Masedu F, Cicciù M, Tepedino M, Denaro M, Ciavarella D. Reliability of recording occlusal contacts by using intraoral scanner and articulating paper: a prospective study. J Dent. 2024;142:104872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104872.
26. Cerna M, Ferreira R, Zaror C, Navarro P, Sandoval P. Validity and reliability of the T-Scan III for measuring force under laboratory conditions. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42(7):544-551. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12284.
27. McDevitt WE, Warreth AA. Occlusal contacts in maximum intercuspation in normal dentitions. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24(10):725-734. https://doi.org/:10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00596.x.
28. Afrashtehfar KI, Qadeer S. Computerized occlusal analysis as an alternative occlusal indicator. Cranio. 2016;34(1):52-57. https://doi.org/10.1179/2151090314Y.0000000024.
29. Wu X, Jin Y, Xiao R, Liao P, Wang Y. Characteristics of occlusal force and contact in 20 individual normal occlusion children with mixed dentition. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2025;57(1):154-160. https://doi.org/10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2025.01.023.
30. Seth-Johansen C, Gotfredsen K. Validity and reliability of digital occlusal analyzing methods in dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent. 2025;163:106124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106124.
31. Maga W, Cieślik W, Schönborn M, Pihut M. The clinical value of digital occlusal analysis in the treatment of patients with temporomandibular disorders: a review of the literature. Folia Med Cracov. 2024;64(3):103-110. https://doi.org/10.24425/fmc.2024.152170.
32. Tiwari B, Ladha K, Lalit A, Dwarakananda Naik B. Occlusal concepts in full mouth rehabilitation: an overview. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014;14(4):344-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-014-0374-y.
33. Millstein P, Maya A. An evaluation of occlusal contact marking indicators: a descriptive quantitative method. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132(9):1280-1286. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0373.
34. Cao H, Lopez D, Lee JD, Lee SJ. Quantitative analysis of occlusion in posterior single-implant supported restorations: a clinical study. J Dent. 2026;164:106233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106233.
35. Čimić S, Žaja M, Kraljević S, Šimunković M, Kopić A, Ćatić. Influence of occlusal interference on the mandibular condylar position. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2016;50(2):116-121. https://doi.org/10.1564/asc50/2/3.
36. Wang R, Xu X. Effect of 2 methods of occlusion adjustment on occlusal balance and muscles of mastication in patient with implant restoration. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2015;24(6):748-752.
37. Wang M, Liu L, Ma X, Jin X, Zhang Z, Jia X, et al. Computerized dynamic occlusal analysis and its correlation with static characters in post-orthodontic patients using the T-Scan system and the ABO objective grading system. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):312. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02868-5.
38. Dinçer G, Nogueira Chamma-Wedemann C, Reis INRD, da Silva EVF, Çakmak G, Yılmaz B, et al. Comparison of digital technologies for occlusal analysis in dentate arches: a systematic review. J Dent. 2025;163:106114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106114.
39. Nagri D, Jain N, Dhawan P. Comparative assessment of the accuracy of digital versus conventional interocclusal records in dentulous patients: a systematic review. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e72002. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.72002.
40. Zupancic Cepic L, Gruber R, Eder J, Vaskovich T, Schmid-Schwap M, Kundi M. Digital versus conventional dentures: a prospective, randomized cross-over study on clinical efficiency and patient satisfaction. J Clin Med. 2023;12(2):434. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020434.
41. Albuhayri FS, Albshaier SJ, Dashti AI, Alrajhi JF, Alhamidy FK, Busuhail MA, et al. The expanding role of artificial intelligence in dentistry: a cross-specialty chairside perspective. Cureus. 2025;17(12):e98449. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.98449.
42. Elbanna L, Karne S, Lopez DZ, Mansoor M, Daniel AO, Movva SR, Singh S. The digital transformation of dentistry: AI-driven innovations and clinical challenges. Am J Med Sci Med. 2026;14(1):7-12. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajmsm-14-1-2.
43. Al-Ani Z, Yar R. Evolution of dental occlusion: integrating digital innovations. Prim Dent J. 2025;14(1):53-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/20501684251320452.
44. Xiao Z, Liu Z, Gu Y. Integration of digital maxillary dental casts with 3D facial images in orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(3):397-404. https://doi.org/10.2319/071619-473.1.
45. Mitchem JA, Katona TR, Moser EAS. Does the presence of an occlusal indicator product affect the contact forces between full dentitions? J Oral Rehabil. 2017;44(10):791-799. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12543.
46. Garrido García VC, García Cartagena A, González Sequeros O. Evaluation of occlusal contacts in maximum intercuspation using the T-Scan system. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24(12):899-903. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00586.x.
47. Revilla-León M, Ntovas P, Barmak AB, Fernández-Estevan L, Agustín-Panadero R, Kois JC. Discrepancies of centric occlusion located by using a conventional method and four intraoral scanners combined with a computer-aided design program: a pilot investigation. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;134(5):1944-1954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.06.023.
48. Ünal HÖ, İnci MA, Dedeoğlu MT, Akgül Ü. Digital occlusal force analysis in anterior crossbite. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):30290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-16194-z.
49. Solaberrieta E, Otegi JR, Goicoechea N, Brizuela A, Pradies G. Comparison of a conventional and virtual occlusal record. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(1):92-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.01.009.