DOS SANTOS AND ASH

10. Ash MM, Ramjford SP. An introduction to functional occlusion. Reprint requests to:
Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1982;21-34. DR. JOSE Dos SANTOS, JR.
11. Lundeen HC, Shryock EF, Gibbs CH. An evaluation of mandib- UNIVERSW OF MICHIGAN
ular border movements: their character and significance. J SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY
PROSTHET DENT 1978;40:442-52. ANN ARBOR, MI 48109-1078
12. Hobo S, Shillingburg HT Jr, Whitsett LD. Articulator se-
lection for restorative dentistry. J PR~~THET DENT 1976;36:35-
43.

Comparison of cast positions by using four

face-bows
J. R. Goska, D.D.S.,* and L. V. Christensen, D.D.S.**
Marquette University, School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wis.

T he face-bow is commonly used for mounting maxil-

lary casts on articulators. Although different face-bow
configurations have been studied for accuracy and ability
to orient casts on the articulator,‘-4 three-dimensional
comparisons between casts mounted with various face-
bows have not been made. This study compared the
positions of maxillary right and left first molar teeth by
using four different face-bows (Hanau Kinematic Face-
bow, Hanau Facia-bow, Hanau 159 Earbow, Hanau
Twirl-bow, Teledyne Hanau, Buffalo, N.Y.).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four face-bow transfers were performed on each of 10
dental students (5 women and 5 men in the age range of
22 to 28 years). All of the students were healthy with no
signs or symptoms from the mandibular locomotor
system. A maxillary cast was obtained from each subject
from an irreversible hydrocolloid impression. All four
face-bow recordings were made according to the manu-
facturer’s instructions, using a point 43 mm superior to
the mesial corner of the incisal edge of the maxillary
right central incisor as the third point of reference. Each
of the face-bow recordings was mounted on the same
Hanau H2 articulator (Teledyne Hanau). When all 40
mountings were completed, minute points on the mesio-
buccal cusp tips of the maxillary first molar teeth were
marked on the maxillary casts. Each face-bow mounting
and its respective maxillary cast was transferred to and
fixed in a movable jig on the contour meter (Fig. l).’ The
*Assistant Professor, Department of Removable Prosthodontics.
**Former Resident, Department of Removable Prosthodontics.
Fig. 1. Contour meter for determining position of
maxillary right and left first molars along X, Y, and Z
axes. Knobs X and Y control movements of mounting jig
along respective X and Y axes. Z dial measures position
of molars along Z axis. M, Mounted maxillary cast
transferred to contour meter.
movable jig allowed sliding measurements along the X
and Y axes. The Z axis was measured from a fixed point
perpendicular to the plane of the X-Y axes. Use of the
contour meter was identical to that described by Ryge
and Fairhurst. The marked points on the maxillary first
molars were recorded in the X-Y-Z coordinate system.
The kinematically determined hinge-axis mounting was
chosen as an arbitrary baseline.
The variables, in millimeters, were deviations along
the X, Y, and Z axes obtained by comparing the marked

42 JANUARY 1988 VOLUME 59 NUMBER 1

CAST POSITIONS WITH FOUR FACE-BOWS

Table I. Mean deviations (in millimeters) Table III. Summary of nested ANOVA of
from hinge-axis baseline, as measured in 10 Y-axis data
human subjects by three face-bows along X,
Source of
Y, and Z axes of maxillary right and left first variation SS DF MS F P
molars
___- Total 605.07 59
Face-bow Among all 12.45 5
subgroups
159-Bow Twirl-Bow Facia-Bow
Groups 6.36 2 3.18 1.57 >0.25
Axis f SD x SD f SD Subgroups 6.09 3 2.03 0.19 >0.25
Error 592.62 54 10.97
X axis
No. 3 I..62 1.01 2.56 2.71 2.19 1.60 For key to symbols see Table II.
No. 14 I. .59 1.16 2.65 2.74 2.10 1.40
Y axis:
No. 3 3.13 3.10 3.15 4.06 2.65 2.33 Table IV. Summary of nested ANOVA of
No. 14 3.67 3.22 4.04 3.96 3.01 2.87 Z-axis data
2 axis:
No. 3 4.01 2.16 3.82 1.29 1.61 0.80 Source of
No. 14 2.99 2.20 1.89 1.22 1.15 0.76 variation SS DF MS F P

No. 3 = Maxillary right first molar, No. 14 = maxillary left first Total 196.79 59
molar. Among all 72.08 5
subgroups
Groups 47.25 2 23.63 2.85 >O.lO
Table II. Summary of nested ANOVA of Subgroups 24.83 3 8.28 3.58 <0.025
X-axis data Error 124.71 54 2.31

Source of For key to symbols see Table II.

variation SS DF MS F P

Total 205.91 59 (i6 < .OOl). ANOVA of Y-axis data is summarized in

Among all 10.17 5 Table III. The analysis showed no significant differ-
subgroups
Groups 10.08 2 5.04
Subgroups 0.09 3 0.03
Error 195.74 54 3.62
SS = Sum of squares; DF = degrees of freedom; MS = mean square;
F =f-ratio; P = significance level.
teeth on the cast mounted with the kinematic face-bow
with those same marks when the cast was mounted with
each of the other three face-bows. Each deviation was
derived from two different sources, the markings on the
right and left maxillary first molars. Nested, or hierar-
chical, analyses of variance (ANOVA) were applied, and
all significance levels equal to or below the 0.05 level
were accepted as significant (ia 5.05).
RESULTS
Table I lists mean deviations from the hinge-axis
baseline as measured at the two different sources and by
the three different face-bow mountings. Table II is a
summary of the ANOVA of data pertaining to the X
axis. No significant difference was found among mea-
surement sources, right and left maxillary first molars,
affecting deviations from the baseline (p > .25), but a
significant difference was found in deviations from the
baseline related to the three different face-bows
168 <O.OOl
ences pertaining to measurement sources or types of
0.01 >0.25 face-bows (p > .25). Table IV is a summary of ANOVA
of Z-axis data. Measurement sources, right and left
maxillary first molars, significantly affected deviations
from the hinge-axis baseline (p < .025); however, no
significant difference was found in deviations from the
baseline related to the three different face-bows
cp > .lO).
DISCUSSION
For the comparison between the three different face-
bows, a kinematically determined hinge-axis baseline
was chosen arbitrarily. Although it is not a naturally
occurring axis, it is widely used as a reference axis for
mounting of casts on an articulator.6s7
Table I shows that deviations between the hinge-axis
baseline and the three face-bow mountings along the X,
Y, and Z axes range from approximately 1.5 to 4 mm.
The deviations show no consistency as a result of using a
particular face-bow. In regard to earpiece face-bows this
might have been the result of naturally occurring varia-
tions in ear anatomy, whereas the earpieces of the
individual bows are uniform in size and shape. In
addition, the Facia-bow device uses a standardized skin
point as the rotational axis, and a “true” axis is not
determined. These factors may contribute to the widely

THE JOURNAL (SF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 43

 COSKA AND CHRISTENSEN

scattered deviations from the hinge-axis baseline. No REFERENCES

face-bow appeared to be superior to another (Tables II
through IV).
SUMMARY
The positions that the maxillary right and left first
molars occupy when a maxillary cast is mounted in the
three-dimensional space of a semiadjustable articulator
(Hanau H2) were studied. Mountings were made by
using four face-bows, the Hanau Kinematic Face-bow,
the Hanau Facia-bow, the Hanau 159 Earpiece Face-
bow, and the Hanau Twirl Earpiece Face-bow. A
kinematically determined hinge-axis was used arbitrari-
ly as the baseline for comparisons among the three other
bows. Deviations from the baseline were measured along
the X, Y, and Z axes by using a contour meter (Fig. 1).
The deviations showed great variability (Table I), and
because maxillary casts are mounted in relation to
anatomic landmarks that differ from subject to subject, it
was not possible to establish clinical superiority of one
face-bow over another.
1. Logan JG. Indispensability of the face-bow and the effect of a
short radius in full and partial denture construction. Dent Dig
1926;32:537-42.
2. McCollum BB. Fundamentals involved in prescribing restorative
dental remedies. Dent Items Interest 1939;61:522-35.
3. Teteruck WR, Lundeen HC. The accuracy of an ear face-bow. J
PROSTHET DENT 1966;16:1039-46.
4. Palik JF, Nelson DR, White JT. Accuracy of an earpiece
face-bow. J PR~~THETDENT 1985;53:800-4.
5. Ryge G, Fairhurst CW. The contour meter: an apparatus for
comparison of mucosal surface contour of impressions, models,
and dentures.J PR~~THETDENT 1959;9:6?6-82.
6. Christensen LV, Slabbert JCG. The concept of the sagittal
condylar guidance: biological fact or fallacy? J Oral Rehabil
1978;5:1-7.
7. Mohamed SE, Christensen LV. Mandibular reference positions.
J Oral Rehabil 1985;12:355-67.
Reprint requests to:
DR.JOHN R.GOSA
831 W. GOLFRD.
LIBERTYVILLE,IL60048

44 JANUARY 1988 VOLUME 59 NUMBER 1