Analyzing the accuracy of a cross‐mounting technique utilizing digitized interocclusal records

Abstract Purpose To compare the accuracy of a partially digital cross‐mounting workflow of direct scans of interocclusal records to a conventional workflow by analyzing the deviations of sequentially cross‐mounted casts. Materials and methods A set of reference casts, comprising maxillary and mandibular full‐arch prepared casts and interim prostheses, was articulated, mounted, and scanned to generate four reference casts for cross‐mounting. In the conventional approach, 15 sets of these four casts were printed. Polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) records were made using the reference casts and utilized for sequential cross‐mounting. In the partially digital group, the same PVS interocclusal records were scanned and used for digital cross‐mounting via design software. The mean deviations of both groups from the reference cast were analyzed using a 3D inspection software program. Statistical tests, including paired t ‐test and analysis of variance (ANOVA), were conducted to compare the average discrepancies between the two groups and to evaluate discrepancies in the anterior and posterior regions (α  =  0.05). Results The range of discrepancies was similar in both the conventional and partially digital groups. The final set of related casts had a mean deviation of 201.58 ± 136.98 mm in the conventional workflow and 248.69 ± 164.71 mm in the partially digital workflow. No statistically significant difference was found between conventional and partially digital groups ( p =  0.091). Error propagation was examined by comparing discrepancies at each step within the cross‐mounting process. In the conventional group, no significant difference was found ( p =  0.148), but a significant difference was found among groups in the partially digital group at each step of sequential mounting ( p <  0.001). A significant difference was observed between anterior and posterior deviations in the partially digital group ( p <  0.001), but not in the conventional group ( p =  0.143). Conclusions The study reveals that there is no statistically significant difference between conventional and partially digital cross‐mounting workflows. However, within the partially digital group, a significant difference in deviation emerges across cross‐mounting steps, with increased deviation in the anterior region.