2014, Number 4
<< Back Next >>
Rev Mex Ortodon 2014; 2 (4)
Comparison between two techniques for registering mandibular position in patients with hemifacial microsomia of the Federico Gomez Children’s Hospital
Valdez FMT, Lombard RL, Gutiérrez CC, Canseco JJF, Cuairán RV
Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 245-252
PDF size: 807.89 Kb.
ABSTRACT
To determine the true position of the mandible is one of the most important aspects of orthodontic-surgical diagnosis. It provides information about the skeletal discrepancy between the maxilla and mandible even in patients with conditions other than a normal pattern of mandibular stability. In patients with hemifacial microsomia it is difficult to determine the true position of the mandible, since due to their condition, they present structural alterations that hinder record taking. The purpose of this study was to assess two techniques for recording mandibular position (power centric technique and the gothic arch technique) to determine the most effective method to provide greater accuracy in the record taking process. Eight patients with hemifacial microsomia, ages between 13 and 17, four female (50%) and four male (50%) were assessed. A total of 16 semi-adjustable articulator mountings were conducted using both techniques. Changes in the overjet, vertical discrepancy and between dental midlines were monitored. The results showed that there were significant sagittal, vertical and transverse differences with the gothic arch technique.
REFERENCES
Klar NA, Kulsbersh R, Freeland T, Kaczynski R. Maximum Intercuspation–centric relation disharmony in 200 consecutively finished cases in a gnathologically oriented practice. USA SeminOrthod. 2003; 9: 109-116.
Scmitt ME, Freeland T, Bever K, Pink FE. Reproducibility of the roth power centric in determining centric relation. USA SeminOrthod. 2003; 9: 102-108.
Christensen GJ. Is occlusion becoming more confusing? A plea for simplicity. JADA. 2004; 135: 767-770.
Rinchuse DJ, Kandasamy S. Centric relation a historical and contemporary orthodontic perspective. JADA. 2006; 137: 494-501.
The glossary of prosthodonticterms. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94 (1): 10-92.
Swenson MG. Complete dentures. In: The CV. St. Louis: Mosby Company; 1953. pp. 303–327.
Shanahan TE. Physiologic jaw relation and occlusion of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1955; 5: 319-324.
McCollum BB. Function-Factors that make mouth and teeth a vital organ. Am Dent Assoc. 1927; 14: 1261-1271.
Dawson PE. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of occlusal problems. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1989.
Granger ER. Centric relation. J Prosthet Dent. 1952; 2: 160-171.
Lucia VO. A technique for recording centric relation. J Prosthet Dent. 1964; 14: 492-505.
Ludeen HC. Centric relation records: The effect of muscle action. J Prosthet Dent. 1974; 31: 244-253.
Wood DP, Floreani KJ, Galil KA, Teteruck WR. The effect of incisal bite force on condylar seating. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64: 321-330.
Williamson E. Occlusal concepts in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment. In: Johnson LE (ed). Ncw vistas in orthodontics. Philadelphia, PA: 1985. pp. 192-147.
Roth D. Functional occlusion for the orthodontist, Part. I. JCO. 1981; 15 (1): 32-51.
Balkwill FH. The best form and arrangement of artificial teeth for mastication. Br J Dent Sci. 1886; 9: 278.
Sears VH. Centric jaw relation. Dent Dig 1952; 58: 302.
Gysi A. The problem of articulation. Dent Cosmos. 1910; 52: 1.
Hanau RL. Dental engineering, Vol. I. part II. Buffalo: Hanau Engineering Co; 1927.
Tench RW. Interpretation and registration of mandibulomaxillary relations and their reproduction in an instrument. J Am Dent Assoc. 1926; 13: 1675.
Gysi A. Practical application of research results in denture construction. J Am Dent Assoc. 1927; 14: 409.
Gorlin Robert J. Syndromes of the head and neck. 4a ed. London: Ed. Oxford; 2001.
Yoshiyuki W. Use of personal computers for gothic arch tracing: analysis and evaluation of horizontal mandibular positions with edentulous prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 82: 562-572.
Full text