The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of the Horizontal Condylar Guidance Using Protrusive Interocclusal Records, OPG, and CBCT in Edentulous Patients: An In Vivo Study

Rashmi Gheedle, Peter John

Keywords : Cone-beam computed tomography, Horizontal condylar guidance, Panoramic radiography, Protrusive interocclusal records

Citation Information : Gheedle R, John P. Comparative Evaluation of the Horizontal Condylar Guidance Using Protrusive Interocclusal Records, OPG, and CBCT in Edentulous Patients: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (6):403-408.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3517

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-07-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aims: A clinical study to compare the horizontal condylar guidance using protrusive interocclusal records, orthopantomography (OPG), and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in edentulous patients. Subjects and methods: Thirty-six edentulous subjects were selected as per predetermined criteria. Horizontal condylar guidance was recorded using protrusive interocclusal records (PIR), OPG, and CBCT for each patient. The PIR were obtained using extraoral Gothic arch tracers to program the Hanau articulator. The horizontal condylar guidance angles (HCGAs) were digitally constructed using appropriate software along the posterior slope of articular eminence for all radiographs. The collected data were recorded, tabulated, and statistically analyzed. Results: The condylar guidance angle values were tested for significance to compare the different angles. The correlation of HCGA measurements on both sides between the three groups was analyzed. The PIR and OPG methods (p = 0.001), as well as the OPG and CBCT methods (p = 0.001), show substantial differences on both sides. On the contrary, the PIR and CBCT methods did not differ significantly (p = 0.11). Conclusion: Cone-beam computed tomography is as reliable and accurate as the clinical method. A significant correlation exists between the clinical method and CBCT. It can be used as a dependable adjunct to the clinical method of HCGA measurement. Clinical significance: Cone-beam computed tomography can overcome the shortcomings of the conventional clinical methods to determine the accurate horizontal condylar guidance angulation measurement. It is safer with minimum discomfort and wastage of time for the patients.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Zheng Z, Yan H, Setzer FC, et al. Anatomically constrained deep learning for automating dental CBCT segmentation and lesion detection. IEEE Trans Automat Sci Eng 2020;18(2):603–614. DOI: 10.1109/TASE.2020.3025871.
  2. Singh A, Sandhu H. Cone-beam computerized tomography in prosthodontics Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2019;7(12):19–22. DOI: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.142.
  3. Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol 2014;6(10):794–807. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i10.794.
  4. Das A, Muddugangadhar BC, Mawani DP, et al. Comparative evaluation of sagittal condylar guidance obtained from a clinical method and with cone beam computed tomography in dentate individuals. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125(5):753–757. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.02.033.
  5. Shetty M, Shetty G. Comparative evaluation of various techniques to record centric relation – a literature review. J Evolution Med Dent Sci 2020;9(01):53–59. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2020/12.
  6. Naqash TA, Chaturvedi S, Yaqoob A, et al. Evaluation of sagittal condylar guidance angles using computerized pantographic tracings, protrusive interocclusal records, and 3D-CBCT imaging techniques for oral rehabilitation. Niger J Clin Pract 2020;23(4):550–554. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_544_19.
  7. McGarry TJ, Nimmo A, Skiba JF, et al. Classification system for complete edentulism. J Prosthodont 1999;8(1):27–39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.1999.tb00005.x.
  8. Jain AR, Dhanraj M. A clinical review of spacer design for conventional complete denture. Biol Med 2016;8(5):1. DOI: 10.4172/0974-8369.1000307.
  9. Kumari VV, Anehosur GV, Meshramkar R, et al. An in vivo study to compare and correlate sagittal condylar guidance obtained by radiographic and extraoral gothic arch tracing method in edentulous patients. European Journal of Prosthodontics 2016;4(1):12. DOI: 10.4103/2347-4610.182961.
  10. Singh S, Thombare R. Evaluating the validity of interocclusal plaster records made while recording protrusive jaw relation using extraoral tracing device. Int J Contemp Dent 2008;2(3). Corpus ID: 74222678.
  11. Zamacona, JM, Otaduy E, Aranda E. Study of the sagittal condylar path in edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(2):314–317. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90336-9.
  12. 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. PMID: 1811642.
  13. Gonzalez JB, Kingery RH. Evaluation of planes of reference for orienting maxillary casts on articulators. The Journal of the American Dental Association 1968;76(2):329–336. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1968.0052.
  14. Santos JD, J. Nelson S, Nummikoski P. Geometric analysis of occlusal plane orientation using simulated ear-rod facebow transfer. J Prosthodont 1996;5(3):172–181. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.1996.tb00293.x.
  15. Corbett NE, Devincenzo JP, Huffer RA, et al. The relation of the condylar path to the articular eminence in mandibular protrusion. The Angle Orthodontist. 1971 Oct;41(4):286-292. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1971)041<0286:TROTCP>2.0.CO;2.
  16. Ingervall B. Relation between height of the articular tubercle of the temporomandibular joint and facial morphology. Angle Orthod 1974; 44(1):15–24. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1974)044<0015:RBHOTA>2.0.CO;2.
  17. Christensen LV, Slabbert JC. The concept of the sagittal condylar guidance: biological fact or fallacy? J Oral Rehabil 1978;5(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1978.tb00384.x.
  18. Gilboa I, Cardash HS, Kaffe I, et al. Condylar guidance: correlation between articular morphology and panoramic radiographic images in dry human skulls. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(6):477–482. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60112-2.
  19. Davis DN, Mackay F. Reliability of cephalometric analysis using manual and interactive computer methods. Br J Orthodont 1991;18(2): 105–109. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.18.2.105.
  20. Shetty S, Kunta M, Shenoy K. A clinico-radiographic study to compare and co-relate sagittal condylar guidance determined by intraoral gothic arch tracing method and panoramic radiograph in completely edentulous patients. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(1):19–23. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_207_17.
  21. Sümbüllü MA, Çağlayan F, Akgül HM, et al. Radiological examination of the articular eminence morphology using cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41(3):234–240. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/24780643.
  22. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. Journal-Canadian Dental Association 2006;72(1):75–80. PMID: 16480609.
  23. Prasad KD, Shah N, Hegde C. A clinico-radiographic analysis of sagittal condylar guidance determined by protrusive interocclusal registration and panoramic radiographic images in humans. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 2012;3(4):383–387. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.107419.
  24. Larheim TA, Abrahamsson AK, Kristensen ML, et al. Temporomandibular joint diagnostics using CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(1):20140235. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140235.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.