Page 8 - CEREC Q1 | 2014

10 11
relationship. In Figure 10, we take the
buccal bite on the first and second molar
area. We achieve a good occlusal relation-
ship. By keeping the samemodels and only
changing the buccal bite, we can demon-
strate what happens to the occlusal rela-
tionship as we change the position of the
buccalbite.InFigure11,wemovethebuccal
bite to the anterior area on the canine. The
occlusal relationship shows that the buccal
bite “pulls” the teeth tight in that area and
causesopeningof thebiteaswemoveaway
fromwhere the buccal bite was taken. The
models had not been reimaged, and the
only variablewas the position of the buccal
bite. This variable demonstrates that the
bite should be taken on the prep itself or in
the center of themodel.
When taking the buccal bite for a full
arch, the bite should be taken in the ante-
rior central area. If the bite is too small, it
doesn’t allow for an accurate relationship
due to “best fit.” The second concern is
how we take the buccal bite. When one
is about to take the buccal bite, consider
that the buccal bite should be treated as
a 2-D relationship that is to be placed on
a 3-D model. This means that the buccal
bite should be only taken by moving the
camera in the XY plane, and not in the Z
where rotations can occur. These rota-
tions will not allow for the accurate rela-
tionship of themodels.
This occurs because the buccal bite is
placed on the 3-D model by a “best fit.”
“Best fit” is affected adversely by too
large of a bite and any bite that involves
a rotation. For the ideal buccal bite, one
should consider using a rail upon which
| | | C H A G G E R