<h2 style="text-align:justify">Bite Registration Fails Quietly&mdash;Until It Costs You a Remake</h2>

&nbsp;

In digital workflows, articulator mounting is often treated as &ldquo;mechanical admin.&rdquo; In reality, it&rsquo;s one of the biggest drivers of occlusal accuracy and predictable delivery. A scan can look perfect and still produce a bad result if the bite registration is unstable, distorted, or mounted inconsistently.

&nbsp;

At Repair.Dental, we see labs escalate &ldquo;scanner alignment problems&rdquo; when the true issue is upstream: the mounting setup introduces micro-shifts that the scanner faithfully captures&mdash;and CAD/CAM faithfully reproduces.

&nbsp;

<div class="fw fl mt10 mb15">
 <div class="w90p ml5p fl">
 <img class="blog_editor_image" alt="" src="https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/repair.dental/uploads/articles/articulator-mounting-guidance.webp" />
 </div>
 
 <div class="fw fl">
 <div class="tc mt10 mb15 cgrey">
 
 articulator mounting guidance
 on
 <a href="https://repair.dental/repairguru/"
 class="cgrey b no_underline" 
 target="_blank"
 rel="noopener noreferrer"
 >
 Repair Guru
 </a>
 
 </div>
 </div>
 
 </div>

<h2 style="text-align:justify">What Proper Bite Registration Looks Like in a Digital Lab</h2>

&nbsp;

A correct record is not just &ldquo;the bite fits.&rdquo; It must be:

<ul>
	<li>
	Stable (no rocking during scanning or articulation)
	</li>
	<li>
	Repeatable (same mount gives the same occlusal relationship)
	</li>
	<li>
	Readable (clear contact surfaces without deformation)
	</li>
	<li>
	Compatible with your scanner&rsquo;s articulation workflow
	</li>
</ul>

If your team can mount the same case twice and get noticeably different occlusal outcomes, you don&rsquo;t have a &ldquo;software problem.&rdquo; You have a process variability problem.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">The Real Risk: Misalignment That Becomes &ldquo;Normal&rdquo;</h2>

&nbsp;

Labs adapt. Designers start compensating, technicians expect adjustments, and the business quietly absorbs the cost. That&rsquo;s why articulation issues are dangerous: they become normalised waste.

Typical hidden costs include:

<ul>
	<li>
	additional chairside adjustments
	</li>
	<li>
	increased remake percentage
	</li>
	<li>
	longer design time due to manual contact corrections
	</li>
	<li>
	patient dissatisfaction when occlusion is &ldquo;almost right&rdquo;
	</li>
	<li>
	strained clinic relationships because the root cause is hard to prove
	</li>
</ul>

A consistent mounting system makes outcomes boring&mdash;in the best way.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Table: Mounting Variables That Influence Digital Bite Accuracy</h2>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<table align="center" style="width:900px">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th>Mounting Variable</th>
			<th>What Goes Wrong</th>
			<th>What You See in Production</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Unstable mount base</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Micro-movement</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Inconsistent contacts, &ldquo;random&rdquo; high spots</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Distorted bite record</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Incorrect jaw relationship</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Occlusal error across the whole arch</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Poor seating of models</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Tilted reference plane</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Scan alignment drift, articulation mismatch</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Inconsistent mounting technique</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Variability by operator</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Case-to-case unpredictability</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Common Mounting Mistakes That Look Like Scanner Issues</h2>

<h2 style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</h2>

These are classic &ldquo;false hardware&rdquo; symptoms:

<ul>
	<li>
	&ldquo;The scans don&rsquo;t line up&rdquo; &rarr; bite record is seated differently each time
	</li>
	<li>
	&ldquo;Occlusion keeps changing&rdquo; &rarr; mount has flex or model rocking
	</li>
	<li>
	&ldquo;Stitching seems off&rdquo; &rarr; articulation reference points are inconsistent
	</li>
	<li>
	&ldquo;We recalibrated but it&rsquo;s still wrong&rdquo; &rarr; calibration can&rsquo;t fix a bad bite record
	</li>
</ul>

A scanner can be perfectly calibrated and still output a wrong bite if the input relationship is unstable.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Bullet Checklist: A Reliable Mounting SOP (Short, Repeatable, Trainable)</h2>

&nbsp;

A strong SOP does not need to be long. It needs to be consistent.

Core steps:

<ul>
	<li>
	Verify model bases are trimmed and seated flat (no wobble)
	</li>
	<li>
	Confirm bite record is intact, clean, and not compressed/distorted
	</li>
	<li>
	Seat models into the bite record using the same pressure method each time
	</li>
	<li>
	Stabilise the assembly before scanning (fixture or controlled support)
	</li>
	<li>
	Use a consistent scanning sequence for bite registration cases
	</li>
	<li>
	Log any deviations (damaged record, partial arch limitations, poor clinic input)
	</li>
</ul>

The most important word here is same. Same method across people, shifts, and case types.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Table: Quick Diagnostic&mdash;Is It Mounting or the Scanner?</h2>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<table align="center" style="width:900px">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th>Test</th>
			<th>If It&rsquo;s Mounting</th>
			<th>If It&rsquo;s Scanner/Calibration</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Re-mount the same case twice</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Occlusion changes noticeably</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Results stay consistent</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Scan a known stable reference case</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Looks normal</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Shows drift/noise across cases</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Swap operators on the same case</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Outcomes differ by person</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Outcomes remain similar</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Compare physical articulation vs digital</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Physical is stable, digital varies</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Both show variability</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;

These tests take minutes and stop you from chasing the wrong fix.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">A Distinct POV: Mounting Is a Data Problem, Not a &ldquo;Skill&rdquo; Problem</h2>

&nbsp;

Most labs frame articulation as craftsmanship. That&rsquo;s partly true, but the scalable view is different: mounting is a data capture process. You&rsquo;re capturing jaw relationship data and turning it into a file that drives manufacturing.

Treat it like data:

<ul>
	<li>
	define acceptable inputs
	</li>
	<li>
	standardise capture conditions
	</li>
	<li>
	control variability
	</li>
	<li>
	verify with repeatability checks
	</li>
</ul>

When you treat bite registration as data, you build a workflow that scales with staff changes and higher volume.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">How to Improve Repeatability Without Buying New Equipment</h2>

&nbsp;

A few practical changes make a big impact:

<ul>
	<li>
	Use consistent fixturing to prevent movement during scanning
	</li>
	<li>
	Standardise model base design so seating is predictable
	</li>
	<li>
	Create a short &ldquo;bite record quality&rdquo; intake checklist
	</li>
	<li>
	Train operators to recognise distortion and reject bad records early
	</li>
	<li>
	Build a simple feedback loop to clinics when records fail standards
	</li>
</ul>

The biggest wins come from reducing variance, not from adding complexity.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Composite Lab Outcomes (Anonymised Patterns We Commonly See)</h2>

&nbsp;

When labs tighten mounting and bite registration standards, the most common improvements are:

<ul>
	<li>
	fewer &ldquo;mystery&rdquo; occlusal adjustments
	</li>
	<li>
	better first-time fit consistency
	</li>
	<li>
	reduced remakes caused by articulation mismatch
	</li>
	<li>
	fewer internal conflicts between scanning, design, and finishing teams
	</li>
	<li>
	clearer clinic conversations because issues are documented, not debated
	</li>
</ul>

That last point matters: a portal or workflow system is only as good as the bite data entering it.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">How Repair.Dental Helps When Bite Issues Trigger &ldquo;Repair&rdquo; Requests</h2>

&nbsp;

When a lab reports recurring occlusal mismatch, we look for evidence before replacing parts:

<ul>
	<li>
	repeatability tests (same case, multiple mounts)
	</li>
	<li>
	error clustering (by operator, case type, scanner ID)
	</li>
	<li>
	correlation with recent changes (software updates, new fixtures, different materials)
	</li>
</ul>

If performance is stable on reference cases but unstable on bite cases, it&rsquo;s a strong signal the scanner is healthy and the workflow needs tightening. If instability persists across reference scans and multiple case types, then we escalate to calibration stability, optics health, articulation accessories, and hardware diagnostics.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Practical Next Step: Track One Metric for a Week</h2>

&nbsp;

If you want immediate clarity, track this:

<ul>
	<li>
	Occlusal adjustment rate (or &ldquo;cases needing contact correction&rdquo;) by operator and case type
	</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

If adjustments cluster by operator or by incoming record quality, you have an input/process problem. If they cluster by scanner ID regardless of operator, that points toward equipment or calibration drift.

Proper articulator mounting isn&rsquo;t a &ldquo;nice-to-have.&rdquo; It&rsquo;s the foundation that keeps digital bite registration predictable, repeatable, and profitable.

&nbsp;

Unusual noises, incomplete scans, or firmware glitches on Shining 3D models? Affordable fixes with high-grade parts extend device life. Check<a href="https://repair.dental/services/lab-scanner-repair/shining-3d-lab-scanner-repair"> AutoScan-DS series repairs</a> backed by warranty and 5&ndash;7 day turnaround.

&nbsp;

<hr />
Please Visit <a href="https://repair.dental/">Repair.Dental</a> or Follow us on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/repair.dental">Facebook</a> &amp; <a href="https://www.instagram.com/repair.dental/">Instagram</a>.

Ensure accurate bite registration with proper articulator mounting. Improve alignment, reduce occlusal errors, and minimize costly remakes .

Articulator Mounting: Proper Bite Registration