Study of the Difference Between Centric Occlusion and Retruded Contact Position

A. Polašek, Manuela Plisko, Anja Profozić, Antonia Plazibat, Samir Čimić
{"title":"Study of the Difference Between Centric Occlusion and Retruded Contact Position","authors":"A. Polašek, Manuela Plisko, Anja Profozić, Antonia Plazibat, Samir Čimić","doi":"10.12974/2311-8695.2022.10.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the difference between retruded contact position (RCP) and centric occlusion (CO) at the level of mandibular condyles. \nMaterials and methods: Study included 20 completely dentate participants (average 24.4 ± 1.2 years). All recordings of the condylar deviations were measured with the use of the ultrasound mandibular recording device with six degrees of freedom. CO was determined using active method of centric relation recording (participants were trained to stationary hinge and maintain the position of the lower jaw at the first tooth contact/contacts). RCP was determined with passive method of centric relation recording (chin point guidance). RCP and CO deviations to the reference position (habitual occlusion) were recorded with the use of the mandibular recording device at the level of x (anterior – posterior), y (vertical) and z (lateral) axes. Linear RCP and CO deviations (from the habitual occlusion) were measured. Descriptive statistics was measured, and the RCP and CO deviation values were compared using independent samples T test. \nResults: Average linear condylar deviation values for the CO were 1.30 ± 1.14 mm, and 2.13 ± 1.89 mm for the RCP. Independent samples T test showed statistically significant difference between RCP and CO linear deviation values (α=0.021). \nConclusions: There is a difference in the positioning of the condyle within temporomandibular joint, with passive or active centric relation recording methods. CO and RCP can be identified as different occlusal positions.","PeriodicalId":76664,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the American College of Dentists","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of the American College of Dentists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8695.2022.10.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the difference between retruded contact position (RCP) and centric occlusion (CO) at the level of mandibular condyles. Materials and methods: Study included 20 completely dentate participants (average 24.4 ± 1.2 years). All recordings of the condylar deviations were measured with the use of the ultrasound mandibular recording device with six degrees of freedom. CO was determined using active method of centric relation recording (participants were trained to stationary hinge and maintain the position of the lower jaw at the first tooth contact/contacts). RCP was determined with passive method of centric relation recording (chin point guidance). RCP and CO deviations to the reference position (habitual occlusion) were recorded with the use of the mandibular recording device at the level of x (anterior – posterior), y (vertical) and z (lateral) axes. Linear RCP and CO deviations (from the habitual occlusion) were measured. Descriptive statistics was measured, and the RCP and CO deviation values were compared using independent samples T test. Results: Average linear condylar deviation values for the CO were 1.30 ± 1.14 mm, and 2.13 ± 1.89 mm for the RCP. Independent samples T test showed statistically significant difference between RCP and CO linear deviation values (α=0.021). Conclusions: There is a difference in the positioning of the condyle within temporomandibular joint, with passive or active centric relation recording methods. CO and RCP can be identified as different occlusal positions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中心咬合与后退接触位置差异的研究
目的:本研究的目的是探讨下颌骨髁突水平的后退接触位置(RCP)和中心咬合(CO)的差异。材料和方法:研究纳入20例全齿受试者(平均24.4±1.2岁)。使用六自由度超声下颌骨记录装置测量所有髁突偏差的记录。使用中心关系记录的主动方法确定CO(参与者被训练为固定铰链并保持下颌在第一颗牙齿接触处的位置)。采用被动中心关系记录法(颏点导引法)测定RCP。使用下颌记录装置在x(前后),y(垂直)和z(侧)轴水平记录RCP和CO到参考位置(习惯性咬合)的偏差。测量线性RCP和CO偏差(习惯性闭塞)。进行描述性统计,采用独立样本T检验比较RCP和CO偏差值。结果:CO的平均直线偏差值为1.30±1.14 mm, RCP为2.13±1.89 mm。独立样本T检验显示,RCP与CO的线性偏差值差异有统计学意义(α=0.021)。结论:采用被动和主动中心关系记录方法,髁突在颞下颌关节内的定位存在差异。CO和RCP可以被识别为不同的咬合位置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Usage of Antimicrobials in Pediatric Dentistry- A Narrative Review Present Status of the Effectiveness of the Patch Test Reagent for Titanium Hypersensitivity Effect of Leukocyte- and Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Postoperative Recovery Following Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Split Mouth Study Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Adhesive Remnant Index of Two Different Primers in Dry and Wet Conditions An Overview of Basic Concepts of Finite Element Analysis and Its Applications in Orthodontics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1