The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2018 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Analysis of Sagittal Condylar Guidance Recorded by Intraoral Gothic Arch Tracing and Panoramic Radiograph in Completely Edentulous Patients

Narendra Kumar, Pallavi Sirana, Anshu Malhotra, Nandini Singhal, Nisha Chaudhary

Keywords : Intraoral gothic arch, Panoramic radiographs, Sagittal condylar guidance

Citation Information : Kumar N, Sirana P, Malhotra A, Singhal N, Chaudhary N. Comparative Analysis of Sagittal Condylar Guidance Recorded by Intraoral Gothic Arch Tracing and Panoramic Radiograph in Completely Edentulous Patients. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (11):1301-1305.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2422

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-10-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare the intraoral gothic tracing method with panoramic radiographs in patients requiring complete dentures. Materials and methods: The present study was conducted on 20 edentulous subjects of both genders. Hanau Wide. Vue semi.adjustable articulator was used to record sagittal condylar guidance in all patients. Panoramic radiographs were taken in all patients and Frankfurt horizontal plane was traced on both sides of orthopantomogram (OPG) and second plane was marked by joining the most superior and most inferior point on the glenoid fossa curvature. Frankfort's horizontal plane was crossed with this line to record radiographic condylar guidance angle. NNT software was used to record the condylar guidance angle. Results: Mean ± standard deviation (SD) clinical SCG (25.15 ± 3.24) and radiographic seismocardiography (SCG) (27.54± 5.01) was non significant (p > 0.05) on left side. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) clinical SCG (26.84 ± 3.69) and radiographic SCG (29.3 5 ± 4.58) was significant (p < 0.05) on right side. The SCG did not show difference in values recorded by both methods on both sides. The difference in values in both sides by clinical method and radiographic method was non-significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: There was correlation between sagittal condylar guidance obtained by both intraoral gothic arch method as well as radiographic method done on digital panoramic radiographs. Clinical significance: Correct centric jaw relation determines the success of the complete denture. Radiographic and clinical methods provide sufficient minute details necessary for the betterment of management.

PDF Share
  1. Shetty S, Satish Babu CL, Tambake D, Surendra Kumar GP, Setpal AT. A comparative evaluation of condylar guidance value from radiograph with interocclusal records made during jaw relation and A Pilot study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:321.326.
  2. Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Eckert SE, Fenton AH, Jacob RF, Mericske-Stern R. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients: complete dentures and implant-supported prostheses. 12th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2004;294.
  3. Gross M, Nemcovsky C, Tabibian Y, Gazit E. The effect of three different recording materials on the reproducibility of condylar guidance registrations in three semi-adjustable articulators. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:204-208
  4. Salinas TJ, Treatment of edentulism: optimizing outcomes with tissue management and impression techniques. J Prosthodont 2009; 18(2):97-105.
  5. Ratzmann A, Mundt T, Schwahn C, Langforth G, Hutzen D, Gedrange T, Kordass B. Comparative clinical investigation of horizontal condylar inclination using the JMA electronic recording system and a protrusive wax record for setting articulators. Int J Comput Dent 2007;10(3):265-284.
  6. Silverman MM. Centric occlusion and fallacies of current concepts. J Prosthet Dent 1957; 7(6):750-769.
  7. Gilboa I, Cardash HS, Kaffe I, Gross MD. Condylar guidance: Correlation between articular morphology and panoramic radiographic images in dry human skulls. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99(6):477.482.
  8. Weinberg LA. An evaluation of basic articulators and their concepts part I and II. J Prosthet Dent 1963;13(6):645.663.
  9. Nandini VV, Nair KC, Sudhakar MC, Poduval TS. Comparative evaluation of hight tracer, Chandra tracer, intraoral tracer, functiograph and checkbite. J Indian Prosthod Soc 2005; 5(1):26-32.
  10. Boos RH. Centric relation and functional areas. J Prosthet Dent 1959;9(2):191-196.
  11. Venkateshwaran R, Karthigeyan S, Manoharan PS, Konchada J, Ramaswamy M. A newer technique to program a semi adjustable articulator. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2014;1:135.139.
  12. Christensen LV, Slabbert JC. The concept of the sagittal condylar guidance: Biological fact or fallacy? J Oral Rehabil 1978;5(1):1.7.
  13. Lee DI, Lee CH, Son MK, Chung CH, Kang DW. Comparison of condylar guidance using ARCUSdigma 2 and Checkbite. Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics. 2013 Jul 1;51(3):153.
  14. Donegan SJ, Christensen LV. Sagittal condylar guidance as determined by protrusion records and wear facets of teeth. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4(5):469.472.
  15. Stramotas S, Geenty JP, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Accuracy of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs taken at various positions in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2002; 24 (1):43.52.
  16. Gray RJ, Quayle AA, Horner K, Al. Gorashi AJ. The effects of positioning variations in transcranial radiographs of the temporomandibular joint: A laboratory study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;29(4):241.249.
  17. Shreshta P, Jain V, Bhalla A, Pruthi G. A comparative study to measure the condylar guidance by the radiographic and clinical methods. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4(3):153.157.
  18. Brewka RE. Pantographic evaluation of cephalometric hinge axis. Am J Orthod 1981;79(1):1.9.
  19. Thakur M, Jain V, Parkash H, Kumar P. A comparative evaluation of static and functional methods for recording centric relation and condylar guidance: A clinical study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012; 12(3):175.178.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.