在体内评估了三种数字咬合分析方法的可靠性和有效性。
评估的三种方法是：扫描清晰的纸痕(SA)，牙科预咬合分析系统(DP)和虚拟咬合构造方法(VO)。使用常规的硅酮透射法(ST)作为比较标准。用这四种方法测试了20个被覆盖的人类受试者中的每一个。以2周的间隔进行每种方法的复检。计算咬合接触面积（OCA）和咬合接触次数（OCN）进行分析。对于可靠性评估，比较了从每种方法获得的OCA和OCN值的组内相关系数（ICC）。对于有效性评估，皮尔逊相关系数，配对t检验，回归分析和Bland-Altman分析。
OCA和OCN的ICC值顺序为:ST>SA>DP>VO。在ST发现了最高的OCA和OCN值，而从DP获得了最低值。当从三种数字方法获得的OCA值与ST比较时，配对t检验确定了显着差异，在DP和ST的OCN值之间。皮尔逊相关性显示ST和三种数字方法之间的系数很高（OCA为0.583-0.885；OCN为0.779-0.836）。在ST的结果与SA或VO的结果之间发现了显着的线性相关性。Bland-Altman分析表明，SA和ST的OCN值具有良好的一致性，在VO和ST之间。
三种数字咬合分析方法在体内临床应用中具有良好的信度和效度。
所检查的三个数字闭塞分析系统在体内定量分析中显示出良好的潜力，具有良好的信度和效度。这些分析方法的使用应促进临床实践中的数字工作流程。
The reliability and validity of three digital occlusion analysis methods was evaluated in vivo.
The three method evalueated were:scanning of articulating paper marks (SA), dental prescale occlusal analysis system (DP) and a virtual occlusion constructed method (VO). A conventional silicone transmission method (ST) was used as the standard for comparison. Each of the 20 enroled human subjects was tested with the four methods. Retest of each method was performed at 2-week intervals. Occlusal contact area (OCA) and occlusal contact numbers (OCN) were calculated for analyses. For reliability evaluation, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of the OCA and OCN values obtained from each method were compared. For validity evaluation, Pearson correlations coefficients, paired t-tests, regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis were examined.
The ICC values of OCA and OCN were in the order: ST>SA>DP>VO. The highest OCA and OCN values were found ST while the lowest values were obtained from DP. Paired t-test identified a significant difference when OCA values obtained from the three digital methods were compared with ST, and between the OCN values of DP and ST. Pearson correlation showed high coefficients between ST and three digital methods (0.583-0.885 for OCA; 0.779-0.836 for OCN). A significant linear correlation was found between the results from ST and those from SA or VO. Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement between OCN values of SA and ST, and between those of VO and ST.
The three digital occlusal analysis methods showed good reliability and validity for in vivo clinical application.
The three digital occlusion analysis systems examined demonstrate good potential in in vivo quantitative analysis, with good reliability and validity. The use of these analytical methods should facilitate digital workflow in clinical practice.
