Skip to main content

A Comparative Evaluation of Static and Functional Methods for Recording Centric Relation and Condylar Guidance: A Clinical Study

The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society volume 12, pages 175–181 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

To evaluate and compare the centric relation and horizontal condylar guidance using interocclusal wax and extra oral Gothic arch methods and subjective evaluation of dentures thus fabricated. Centric relation and horizontal condylar guidance was recorded by using interocclusal wax and gothic arch tracing in 28 completely edentulous patients. These records were transferred to the articulator and difference in both values was recorded. After that patients were divided in two groups according to the centric relation and horizontal condylar guidance recording method used to achieve balanced occlusion. Response of the dentures was subjectively evaluated using “Woelfel subjective evaluation criteria”. Centric relation recorded by both the methods did coincide in 7.14 % of patients. Centric relation recorded by interocclusal wax was posterior to Gothic centric relation in 21.43 % of patients, and anterior to Gothic centric relation in 71.42 % patients. Gothic arch tracings gave higher mean guidance values on both the sides as compared to protrusive wax record in all the subjects, although the difference was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05). Subjective evaluation showed statistical insignificance for all the parameters in both groups. Gothic arch method records the centric relation at a more posterior position than the Static method, but it does not make any difference in clinical performance of the complete denture. Horizontal condylar guidance angle was approximately similar by both the methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Zarb GA, Bolarder CL, Hickey JC, Carlsson GE (1997) Boucher’s prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients, 10th edn. The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, p 283, 270, 422

  2. Needles JW (1923) Mandibular movements and articulator design. J Am Dent Assoc 10:927–935

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boos RH (1940) Intermaxillary relation established by biting power. J Am Dent Assoc 27:1192–1199

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pyott JE, Schaeffer A (1952) Simultaneous recording of centric occlusion and vertical dimension. J Am Dent Assoc 44:430–436

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shanahan TEJ (1955) Physiologic jaw relations and occlusion of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 5:319–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Donegan SJ, Christensen LV (1991) Sagittal condylar guidance as determined by protrusion records and wear facets of teeth. J Prosthet Dent 45:469–472

    Google Scholar 

  7. Celenza FV (1979) An analysis of articulators. Dent Clin North Am 23:305–326

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Swenson MG (1959) Complete dentures, 4th edn. The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, p 166, 167, 382–386

  9. Pelletier LB, Campbell SD (1991) Comparison of condylar control settings using three methods: a bench study. J Prosthet Dent 66:193–200

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ecker GA, Goodacre CJ, Dykema RW (1984) A comparison of condylar control Settings obtained from wax interocclusal records and simplified mandibular Motion analyzers. J Prosthet Dent 51:404–406

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Preti G, Scotti RS, Bruscagin C (1982) A clinical study of graphic registration of the condylar path inclination. J Prosthet Dent 48:461–466

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Posselt UP, Franzen G (1960) Registration of the condyle path inclination by intraoral wax records: variations in three instruments. J Prosthet Dent 10:441–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Trapozzano VR (1955) Occlusal records. J Prosthet Dent 5:325–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kingery RH (1952) A review of some of the problems associated with centric relation. J Prosthet Dent 2:307–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Payne SH (1995) Selective occlusion. J Prosthet Dent 5:301–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Niswonger ME (1934) The rest position of the mandible and the centric relation. J Am Dent Assoc 21:1572

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rahn AO, Heartwell MC (1993) Textbook of complete dentures, 5th edn. Lea & Febiger, USA, pp 193–290

    Google Scholar 

  18. Swenson MG (1959) Complete dentures, 4th edn. The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, pp 382–386

    Google Scholar 

  19. Woelfel BJ, Paffenbarger GC, Sweeney WT (1965) Clinical evaluation of complete dentures made of different types of denture. Base materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 70:1170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Walker RC (1962) A comparison of jaw relation recording methods. J Prosthet Dent 12:685–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kantor ME, Silver SI, Garfinkel L (1973) Centric relation recording techniques: a comparative investigation. J Prosthet Dent 30:604–606

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith HF (1975) A comparison of empirical centric relation records with location of terminal hinge axis and apex of the Gothic arch tracing. J Prosthet Dent 33:511–520

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dawson PE (1989) Evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of occlusal problems, 2nd edn. CV Mosby Company, St. Louis, p 214

    Google Scholar 

  24. Craddock FW (1949) The accuracy and practical value of records of condyle path inclination. J Am Dent Assoc 38:697–710

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Santos JD, Nelson S, Nowlin T (2003) Comparison of condylar guidance setting obtained from a wax record versus an extra oral tracing. A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 89:54–59

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mccollum BB, Staurt CE (1955) A research report. Scientific press, California

    Google Scholar 

  27. Beard CC, Clayton JA (1975) Electronic PRI consistency in diagnosis temporomandibular joint dysfunction. J Prosthet Dent 55:255–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hobo S, Takayama H (1997) Oral rehabilitation: clinical determination of occlusion, 1st edn. Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc., Tokyo 8

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, 110029, India

    Mridul Thakur, Veena Jain, Hari Parkash & Pravesh Kumar

  2. Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Room No. 212, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Veena Jain

Authors
  1. Mridul Thakur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veena Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hari Parkash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pravesh Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veena Jain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thakur, M., Jain, V., Parkash, H. et al. A Comparative Evaluation of Static and Functional Methods for Recording Centric Relation and Condylar Guidance: A Clinical Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 12, 175–181 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0154-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0154-5

Keywords

  • Centric relation
  • Horizontal condylar guidance
  • Complete denture