A clinical and cost-benefit evaluation of five facebows

Nachum Samet, Ami Smidt, Naama Samet, Ervin Izhak Weiss

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)511-515
Number of pages5
JournalQuintessence International
Issue number7
StatePublished - Jul 2002
Externally publishedYes


  • Centering mechanism
  • Clinical evaluation
  • Earpiece
  • Facebow
  • Fork mechanism


Dive into the research topics of 'A clinical and cost-benefit evaluation of five facebows'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this