Spanish 
Chinese 
Russian 
German 
French 
Japanese 
Portuguese 
Hindi Research Article
Variations between Visually Estimated and Actual Convergence Angles of Tooth Preparations
Thamer Y Marghalani*Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, Fixed Prosthodontics Division, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
- Corresponding Author:
- Thamer Y Marghalani
Associate Professor and Consultant
Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Faculty of Dentistry
King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
Tel: +966-567438377
E-mail: thamerdr@yahoo.com
Received date: April 16, 2015; Accepted date: May 04, 2015; Published date: May 11, 2015
Citation: Marghalani TY (2015) Variations between Visually Estimated and Actual Convergence Angles of Tooth Preparations. J Interdiscipl Med Dent Sci 3:176. doi: 10.4172/2376-032X.1000176
Copyright: © 2015 Marghalani TY. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the actual CA values of tooth preparations to those visually estimated by experienced prosthodontists, and to compare performance between prosthodontists.
Materials and methods: Three prosthodontists visually estimated the mesiodistal and buccolingual convergence angles (MDCA and BLCA, respectively) of 65 randomly selected premolar preparations made by dental students on typodonts. Preparations were scanned in three dimensions and digitized. Actual MDCA and BLCA values were measured by three-dimensional imaging software. Data were analyzed by Friedman test (α=.05) and pairwise multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment (α=.0042).
Results: The mean actual MDCA was 10.66 ± 3.96 degrees, compared to visual estimates of 13.86 ± 12.01, 21.94 ± 6.11, and 12.49 ± 8.38 degrees. The mean actual BLCA was 11.31 ± 4.80 degrees, compared to visual estimates of 13.32 ± 10.93, 23.52 ± 6.18, and 8.83 ± 5.75 degrees. The Friedman test resulted in χ2(3) = 68.54 (P<. 05) for MDCA and χ2(3) = 100.07 (P<.05) for BLCA. Multiple comparisons indicated that two prosthodontists provided CA estimates that were similar to each other (MDCA, P=1.0; BLCA, P=.042) and to the actual CA values (MDCA, P=.804 and P=.457; BLCA, P=1.0 and P=.006), whereas one prosthodontists provided higher CA estimates compared to the actual CA values and the other prosthodontists (P<.0042).
Conclusions: One out of three of prosthodontists gave high CA estimates of tooth preparations compared to the actual CA and other prosthodontists’ estimates.
