Integrating maxillary dentition and 3D facial photo using a modified CAD/CAM facebow

BMC Oral Health

Table 4 Comparison of CT approach, CAD/CAM facebow approach, and traditional facebow to transfer the spatial relationship between the maxillary dentition and the face

	CT approach		CAD/CAM facebow approach		Traditional facebow approach
Radiation (µSv)	30-1073^#		0		0
Cost ($)^##	CT scan	70	Facebow tray (with impression material)	30	Facebow tray	15
	3D image acquisition	5	3D image acquisition	5	Articulator mounting	85
	Total	75	Total	35	Total	100
Effectiveness	Soft tissue	Yes	Soft tissue	Yes	Soft tissue	No
	Bone	Yes	Bone	No	Bone	No
	Dentition	Yes	Dentition	Yes	Dentition	Yes
	Spatial relationship	Yes	Spatial relationship	Yes	Spatial relationship	Yes
Efficiency (min) ^###
Clinical operation	CT scan	1.5–2.5	3D image acquisition	4–4.50	Facebow application	10–15
Laboratory processing	Laboratory reconstruction	2–3	Laboratory integration	11–11.5	Laboratory mounting	40–60
Total		3.5–5.5		15–16		50–75

CT computed tomography; CAD/CAM computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
^#Radiation of CT approach is given as effective dose exposure by American Dental Association
^##Cost of each approach represents the prices charged for each patient in West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
^###Efficiency of each approach is given as approximate clinical and laboratory time spent by the same group of experienced operators. The duration of laboratory mounting included time for the plaster to cure. The CBCT scans were taken by 3D Accu-I-tomo (Morita, Japan), the spiral CT scans were taken by MX16 EVO (Philips, Holland), and the time spent on CT scans includes the procedure of patient and machine preparation

ISSN: 1472-6831