# Digital Recordings of Centric Relation Using Conventional and Digital Techniques: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

## TL;DR

This study compares patient comfort and experience when using conventional versus digital methods to record jaw position for dental treatments, finding similar outcomes despite differences in recording time.

## Contribution

The study introduces a comparison of patient-reported outcomes between conventional and digital centric relation recording techniques in prosthodontics.

## Key findings

- No significant difference in patient-reported comfort between conventional and digital CR recording methods.
- Conventionally determined CR had significantly shorter recording times compared to digital methods.
- No correlation was found between recording time and patient experience for either technique.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Centric relation (CR) is a reproducible mandibular reference position that plays a critical role in complex prosthodontic cases. With the advent of digital jaw-tracking devices, CR can now be recorded with greater precision through fully digital methods. This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the recording of CR determined with conventional and digital techniques. Methods: Patients requiring occlusal rehabilitation due to bilateral loss of posterior support in the maxilla were included. Two different jaw relation recording techniques were applied: conventionally determined CR and digitally determined CR. The former was determined using bimanual manipulation, while the latter through multiple mandibular closure recordings performed with an anterior plateau using a jaw-tracking device. PROMs were assessed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to evaluate patient experience during jaw relation recording and comfort during restoration try-in. The recording time for both techniques was documented, and the correlation between recording time and VAS scores related to the recording procedure was analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Spearman correlation analysis (α = 0.05). Results: Twelve patients were included. No statistically significant difference was found between the two methods in VAS scores assessing patient-reported comfort and experience. Recording time was significantly shorter for the recording of conventionally determined CR (p = 0.002). No statistically significant correlation was found between recording time and patient-reported experience for both techniques (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Despite the need for clinician experience and patient compliance, PROMs for digitally determined CR were comparable to those of conventionally determined CR.