medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2015, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2015; 19 (1)

Assessment of two techniques for the recording of mandibular central relationship: gothic arch versus power centric relation

Maldonado MJA, Lombard RL, Gutiérrez CC, Canseco JJF, Cuairán RV

Language: Spanish
References: 31
Page: 27-32
PDF size: 462.15 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The search for the true mandibular position with respect to the glenoid fossa and the relationship of the other components which constitute the temporomandibular joint known as centric relation (CR) are essential factors for its diagnosis, treatment and stability. The aim of the present study was to assess two techniques used for recording CR: power centric technique and gothic arch technique, with the purpose of determining the most effective method to confer greater accuracy to the recording. This was triggered by the fact that in our institution some inconsistencies had been detected when taking records of patients afflicted with considerable skeletal discrepancies or malformations. Fifteen healthy skeletal class II patients were assessed. Patients’ ages ranged from 13 to 17 years. Eight patients were female (53.4%) and seven male (46.6%). Using both techniques, thirty mountings were performed in a semi-adjustable articulator, condylar changes were monitored using axial condylar position indicator (API). Results revealed no significant differences, nevertheless, observed transversal, vertical and saggital changes were greater with the gothic arch technique.


REFERENCES

  1. Klar NA, Kulsbersh R, Freeland T, Kaczynski R. Maximum intercuspation - centric relation disharmony in 200 consecutively finished cases in a gnathologically oriented practice. USA Semin Orthod. 2003; 9: 109-116.

  2. Schmitt, Freeland T, Bever K, Pink FE. Reproducibility of the roth power centric in determining centric relation. USA Semin Orthod. 2003; 9: 102-108.

  3. Christensen GJ. Is occlusion becoming more confusing? A plea for simplicity. JADA. 2004; 135: 767-770.

  4. Rinchuse DJ, Kandasamy S. Centric relation a historical and contemporary orthodontic perspective. JADA. 2006; 137: 494-501.

  5. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94 (1): 10-92.

  6. Swenson MG. Complete dentures. Ed. 6. St. Louis, 1970 The C.V. Mosby Co.

  7. Shanahan TE. Physiologic jaw relation and occlusion of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1955; 5: 319-324.

  8. McCollum BB. Function--factors that make mouth and teeth a vital organ. Am Dent Assoc. 1927; 14: 1261-1271, CB Mosby, 1989

  9. Dawson PE. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of occlusal problems. St Louis, MO.

  10. Granger ER. Centric relation. J Prosthet Dent. 1952; 2: 160-171.

  11. Lucia VO. A technique for recording centric relation. J Prosthet Dent. 1964; 14: 492-505.

  12. Ludeen HC. Centric relation records: The effect of muscle action. J Prosthet Dent. 1974; 31: 244-253.

  13. Wood DP, Floreani KJ, Galil KA, Teteruck WR. The effect of incisal bite force on condylar seating. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64: 321-330.

  14. Williamson E. Occlusal concepts in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment. In: Johnson LE (ed). New vistas in orthodontics. Philadelphia, PA, 1985; 192-147.

  15. Roth RH. Functional occlusion for the orthodontist, Part I. J Clin Orthod. 1981; 15 (1): 32-51.

  16. Balkwill FH. The best form and arrangement of artificial teeth for mastication. Br J Dent Sci. 9:278, 1886.

  17. Sears VH. Centric jaw relation. Dent Dig. 1952; 58: 302.

  18. Gysi A. The problem of articulation. Dent Cosmos. 1910; 52: 1.

  19. Hanau RL. Dental engineering. Vol. I. part II. Buffalo, 1927, Hanau Engineering Co.

  20. Tench RW. Interpretation and registration of mandibulomaxillary relations and their reproduction in an instrument. J Am Dent Assoc. 1926; 13: 1675.

  21. Gysi A. Practical application of research results in denture construction. J Am Dent Assoc. 1927; 14: 409.

  22. Roth RH. Functional occlusion for the orthodontist, Part II. J Clin Orthod. 1981; 15 (2): 100-123.

  23. Roth RH. Functional occlusion for the orthodontist, Part III. J Clin Orthod. 1981; 15 (03): 174-198.

  24. Lavine D, Kulbersh R, Bonner P, Pink FE. Reproducibility of the condylar position indicator. Semin Orthod. 2003; 9: 96-101.

  25. Derakhshan M, Sadowsky C. A relatively minor adult case becomes significantly complex: a lesson in humility. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119: 546-553.

  26. Ricketts RM. A study of change in temporomandibular relations associated with the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod. 1952; 38: 918-933.

  27. Bishara SE. Class II malocclusions: diagnostic and clinical considerations with and without treatment. Semin Orthod. 2006; 12: 11-24.

  28. Utt TW, Meyers CE Jr, Wierzba TF, Hondrum SO. A three-dimensional comparison of condylar position changes between centric relation and centric occlusion using the mandibular position indicator. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107: 298-308.

  29. Crawford SD. Condylar axis position, as determined by the occlusion and measured by the CPI instrument, and signs and symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69 (2): 103-115.

  30. Rinchuse DJ. Counterpoint: a three-dimensional comparison of condylar change between centric relation and centric occlusion using the mandibular position indicator. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107: 319-328.

  31. McNamara JA Jr, Seligman DA, Okeson JP. Occlusion, orthodontic treatment, and temporomandibular disorders: a review. J Orofac Pain. 1995; 9 (1): 73-90.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com