The International journal of prosthodontics · 2022
Is There "A Best" Centric Relation Record? Centric Relation Records, Condyle Positions, and Their Practical Significance.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Utz Karl-Heinz, Lückerath Walter, Schwarting Peter, Noethlichs Wolfgang, Büttner Ralph, Grüner Manfred, Fuß Edgar, Stark Helmut
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate if and how the positions of condyles in centric relation (CR) varied from each other using different CR records.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Condylar positions in CR were repeatedly recorded by four licensed clinicians in 81 stomatognathically healthy, fully dentate subjects with six different types of CR records. The maxillary casts were mounted in articulators after individual facebow transfer, and the mandibular casts were mounted with a central bearing point (CBP) registration on the tip of the Gothic arch. Mean values from three registrations of the centric condylar positions with each of the six methods were calculated, and comparative calculations were made.
RESULTS: The median spatial distances of the condylar positions between the CBP and all other CR records was 0.73 ± 0.24 mm (0 to 3.19 mm). The median spatial values between the condylar positions of the different CR records ranged from 0.48 to 0.79 mm. Statistically, the positions of almost all types of registration were slightly different from each other.
CONCLUSION: Different CR records reproduce slightly different positions of the mandible, which is especially true for CBP registration, whereas reproducibilities and SDs between registrations are similar. Unrefined wax-wafer registrations using bimanual manipulation have proven particularly successful with regard to precision and time requirements, as has CBP registration with regard to condylar position.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Condylar positions in CR were repeatedly recorded by four licensed clinicians in 81 stomatognathically healthy, fully dentate subjects with six different types of CR records. The maxillary casts were mounted in articulators after individual facebow transfer, and the mandibular casts were mounted with a central bearing point (CBP) registration on the tip of the Gothic arch. Mean values from three registrations of the centric condylar positions with each of the six methods were calculated, and comparative calculations were made.
RESULTS: The median spatial distances of the condylar positions between the CBP and all other CR records was 0.73 ± 0.24 mm (0 to 3.19 mm). The median spatial values between the condylar positions of the different CR records ranged from 0.48 to 0.79 mm. Statistically, the positions of almost all types of registration were slightly different from each other.
CONCLUSION: Different CR records reproduce slightly different positions of the mandible, which is especially true for CBP registration, whereas reproducibilities and SDs between registrations are similar. Unrefined wax-wafer registrations using bimanual manipulation have proven particularly successful with regard to precision and time requirements, as has CBP registration with regard to condylar position.