We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 33 (2002), No. 7     1. July 2002
Quintessence Int 33 (2002), No. 7  (01.07.2002)

Page 511-515

A clinical and cost-benefit evaluation of five facebows
Samet, Nachum / Smidt, Ami / Samet, Naama / Weiss, Ervin Izhak
Objective: Although the use of an arbitrary facebow and a full-sized articulator can reduce laboratory errors, many dentists do not use a facebow routinely because the procedure seems to be both intricate and time consuming.The purpose of the present study was to evaluate four earpiece-type facebows and the Snow facebow and to compare the time required for registration, the ease of manipulation, and cost-benefit considerations. Method and materials: Twenty-five dentists who routinely used only the Snow facebow were asked, after a brief explanation, to perform registrations with the Snow facebow and four new-generation, earpiece-type facebows. The time required for each facebow registration was recorded. Dentists were also asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning ease of manipulation and cost-benefit factors. Results: The Quick facebow was the facebow of choice of most of the dentists because of its favorable design and usage characteristics and cost-benefit ratio. The Artex 3-D facebow proved to be both the easiest and the fastest to manipulate. The Spring-bow and the Whip-Mix Quickmount were next in rank, and the Snow facebow scored the lowest. Conclusion: The use of earpiece-type facebows is both simple and fast, and practitioners judged this type of facebow to be superior to the Snow facebow.