These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the replicability of routinely used centric relation registration techniques.
    Author: Keshvad A, Winstanley RB.
    Journal: J Prosthodont; 2003 Jun; 12(2):90-101. PubMed ID: 12964681.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: This study was conducted to determine statistically the most repeatable mandibular position of 3 centric relation methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three centric relation recording methods commonly reported in the literature were selected: bimanual mandibular manipulation with a jig, chin point guidance with a jig, and Gothic arch tracing. Fourteen healthy adult volunteers (7 males and 7 females), with an average age of 26.61 +/- 4.20 years and no history of extractions, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, or orthodontic treatment, were selected for the study. Accurate casts were mounted on an articulator (Denar D4A) by means of a facebow and maximum intercuspation silicone registration record. A mechanical 3-dimensional mandibular position indicator was constructed and mounted on the articulator enabling the operator to analyze the mandibular positions in 3 spatial axes (x, anteroposterior; y, superoinferior; z, mediolateral shift). Each centric relation method was recorded four times on each subject (at baseline, 1 hour, 1 day, and 1 week at approximately the same time of day). Records were transferred to the articulator, and data were extracted using a stereomicroscope modified to accept the mandibular position indicator. RESULTS: Variability within subjects ranged from 0.03 mm (left-side z axis for the bimanual method) to 1.6 mm (left-side y axis for the Gothic arch method). To indicate the least variable (most repeatable) method a comparison was made using the F test. The bimanual method was the most consistent, showing between 10.11 (p = 1) and 0.438 (p = 0.005) times less variation than the Gothic arch method (the least consistent). The repeatability of the chin point guidance method was somewhere between the other 2 methods. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that of the 3 centric relation methods evaluated, the bimanual manipulation method positioned the condyles in the temporomandibular joint with a more consistent repeatability than the other 2 methods, whereas the Gothic arch was the least consistent method.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]