Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice · 2025
Canine Protected Occlusion - evidence-based clinical guidance.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rinchuse Donald J, Kandasamy Sanjivan, Manfredini Daniele
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This commentary critically examines the validity of the Canine Protected Occlusion concept, from both biological and evidence-based perspectives.
METHODS: An extensive review of the pertinent literature related to the topic of Canine Protected Occlusion was conducted by the authors.
RESULTS: Canine Protected Occlusion is neither the optimal or preferred functional occlusion in dentistry. The foundational principles of this concept are not supported by any biologic reasoning or scientific evidence. Furthermore, Canine Protected Occlusion recordings fail to reflect or represent any type of physiologic mandibular motion and function or occlusal loading in humans.
CONCLUSIONS: The functional occlusion contacts that clinicians should focus on most are those in or close to maximum intercuspation. This perspective aims to discourage practitioners from undertaking unnecessary extensive and invasive procedures to establish Canine Protected Occlusion in all patients, especially when this is not substantiated by evidence-based literature.
METHODS: An extensive review of the pertinent literature related to the topic of Canine Protected Occlusion was conducted by the authors.
RESULTS: Canine Protected Occlusion is neither the optimal or preferred functional occlusion in dentistry. The foundational principles of this concept are not supported by any biologic reasoning or scientific evidence. Furthermore, Canine Protected Occlusion recordings fail to reflect or represent any type of physiologic mandibular motion and function or occlusal loading in humans.
CONCLUSIONS: The functional occlusion contacts that clinicians should focus on most are those in or close to maximum intercuspation. This perspective aims to discourage practitioners from undertaking unnecessary extensive and invasive procedures to establish Canine Protected Occlusion in all patients, especially when this is not substantiated by evidence-based literature.