Digital Condylar Parameter Assessment Using Cadiax<sup>®</sup> 2 and Modjaw<sup>®</sup>
<b>Background</b>: The main aim of this research was to assess the reliability of two systems designed specifically for condylar movement recording using condylar slope and Bennett angle information. The objectives were to evaluate the validity of two subsequent null hypotheses: (1) ther...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Dentistry Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6767/12/11/369 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850267593945907200 |
|---|---|
| author | Smaranda Buduru Sara Hafidi Oana Almășan Manuela Manziuc Manuela Tăut Rareș Buduru Vlad-Ionuț Nechita Andreea Kui Andreea Chisnoiu Cecilia Bacali |
| author_facet | Smaranda Buduru Sara Hafidi Oana Almășan Manuela Manziuc Manuela Tăut Rareș Buduru Vlad-Ionuț Nechita Andreea Kui Andreea Chisnoiu Cecilia Bacali |
| author_sort | Smaranda Buduru |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Background</b>: The main aim of this research was to assess the reliability of two systems designed specifically for condylar movement recording using condylar slope and Bennett angle information. The objectives were to evaluate the validity of two subsequent null hypotheses: (1) there is no significant difference between the measurements of condylar slope and Bennett angle taken at T0 (initial) and T1 (after one week) using the same equipment; (2) there is no notable difference in the values of the condylar slope and Bennett angle measurements obtained using Modjaw and Cadiax 2. <b>Methods</b>: An observational, descriptive, and prospective study was conducted with a selected group of 25 individuals (13 females and 12 males) aged between 22 and 27. <b>Results</b>: The results of Cadiax 2 and Modjaw showed excellent measurement repeatability for both parameters, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) above 0.90, indicating excellent reliability between T0 and T1, both at 3 mm and 5 mm of displacement. Modjaw had an overall average value relatively higher than Cadiax 2, even though Modjaw’s condylar slope at 5mm had a significantly lower average value (37.4 ± 6.31) with an interval of 24.5–48.1, which was lower than Cadiax 2 (48.4 ± 10.6) with an interval of 30.5–68.5. Regarding the primary aim, it can be stated that both Modjaw and Cadiax 2 demonstrated excellent repeatability on their own, demonstrating robust reliability since there was no discernible difference between the T0 and T1 measurements. On the contrary, analyses of the two devices’ measured values for the secondary aim showed a considerable difference. <b>Conclusions</b>: Even though each device is reliable on its own, the absolute values that are obtained are different. Technological differences between the systems may account for these variations. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-053bb69a85704efe9461eef2bcd6e83c |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2304-6767 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Dentistry Journal |
| spelling | doaj-art-053bb69a85704efe9461eef2bcd6e83c2025-08-20T01:53:44ZengMDPI AGDentistry Journal2304-67672024-11-01121136910.3390/dj12110369Digital Condylar Parameter Assessment Using Cadiax<sup>®</sup> 2 and Modjaw<sup>®</sup>Smaranda Buduru0Sara Hafidi1Oana Almășan2Manuela Manziuc3Manuela Tăut4Rareș Buduru5Vlad-Ionuț Nechita6Andreea Kui7Andreea Chisnoiu8Cecilia Bacali9Prosthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaProsthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaProsthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaProsthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaProsthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaStomestet Dental Clinic, 400658 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaDepartment of Medical Education, Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400029 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaProsthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaProsthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaProsthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania<b>Background</b>: The main aim of this research was to assess the reliability of two systems designed specifically for condylar movement recording using condylar slope and Bennett angle information. The objectives were to evaluate the validity of two subsequent null hypotheses: (1) there is no significant difference between the measurements of condylar slope and Bennett angle taken at T0 (initial) and T1 (after one week) using the same equipment; (2) there is no notable difference in the values of the condylar slope and Bennett angle measurements obtained using Modjaw and Cadiax 2. <b>Methods</b>: An observational, descriptive, and prospective study was conducted with a selected group of 25 individuals (13 females and 12 males) aged between 22 and 27. <b>Results</b>: The results of Cadiax 2 and Modjaw showed excellent measurement repeatability for both parameters, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) above 0.90, indicating excellent reliability between T0 and T1, both at 3 mm and 5 mm of displacement. Modjaw had an overall average value relatively higher than Cadiax 2, even though Modjaw’s condylar slope at 5mm had a significantly lower average value (37.4 ± 6.31) with an interval of 24.5–48.1, which was lower than Cadiax 2 (48.4 ± 10.6) with an interval of 30.5–68.5. Regarding the primary aim, it can be stated that both Modjaw and Cadiax 2 demonstrated excellent repeatability on their own, demonstrating robust reliability since there was no discernible difference between the T0 and T1 measurements. On the contrary, analyses of the two devices’ measured values for the secondary aim showed a considerable difference. <b>Conclusions</b>: Even though each device is reliable on its own, the absolute values that are obtained are different. Technological differences between the systems may account for these variations.https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6767/12/11/369sagittal condylar inclinationBennett angleCadiax 2ModjawTMJ digital assessment |
| spellingShingle | Smaranda Buduru Sara Hafidi Oana Almășan Manuela Manziuc Manuela Tăut Rareș Buduru Vlad-Ionuț Nechita Andreea Kui Andreea Chisnoiu Cecilia Bacali Digital Condylar Parameter Assessment Using Cadiax<sup>®</sup> 2 and Modjaw<sup>®</sup> Dentistry Journal sagittal condylar inclination Bennett angle Cadiax 2 Modjaw TMJ digital assessment |
| title | Digital Condylar Parameter Assessment Using Cadiax<sup>®</sup> 2 and Modjaw<sup>®</sup> |
| title_full | Digital Condylar Parameter Assessment Using Cadiax<sup>®</sup> 2 and Modjaw<sup>®</sup> |
| title_fullStr | Digital Condylar Parameter Assessment Using Cadiax<sup>®</sup> 2 and Modjaw<sup>®</sup> |
| title_full_unstemmed | Digital Condylar Parameter Assessment Using Cadiax<sup>®</sup> 2 and Modjaw<sup>®</sup> |
| title_short | Digital Condylar Parameter Assessment Using Cadiax<sup>®</sup> 2 and Modjaw<sup>®</sup> |
| title_sort | digital condylar parameter assessment using cadiax sup r sup 2 and modjaw sup r sup |
| topic | sagittal condylar inclination Bennett angle Cadiax 2 Modjaw TMJ digital assessment |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6767/12/11/369 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT smarandabuduru digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup AT sarahafidi digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup AT oanaalmasan digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup AT manuelamanziuc digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup AT manuelataut digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup AT raresbuduru digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup AT vladionutnechita digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup AT andreeakui digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup AT andreeachisnoiu digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup AT ceciliabacali digitalcondylarparameterassessmentusingcadiaxsupsup2andmodjawsupsup |