Comparative Analysis of Sagittal Condylar Guidance Recorded by Intraoral Gothic Arch Tracing and Panoramic Radiograph in Completely Edentulous Patients

Abstract

Aim:To compare the intraoral gothic tracing method with pano ramic radiographs in patients requiring complete dentures. Materials and methods:The present study was conducted on 20 edentulous subjects of both genders. Hanau WideVue semiadjustable articulator was used to record sagittal condylar guidance in all patients. Panoramic radiographs were taken in all patients and Frankfurt horizontal plane was traced on both sides of orthopantomogram (OPG) and second plane was marked by joining the most superior and most inferior point on the glenoid fossa curvature. Frankfort's horizontal plane was crossed with this line to record radiographic condylar guid ance angle. NNT software was used to record the condylar guidance angle.Results: Mean ± standard deviation (SD) clinical SCG (25.15 ± 3.24) and radiographic seismocardiography (SCG) (27.54± 5.01) was non significant (p > 0.05) on left side. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) clinical SCG (26.84 ± 3.69) and radiographic SCG (29.3 5 ± 4.58) was significant (p < 0.05) on right side. The SCG did not show difference in values recorded by both methods on both sides. The difference in values in both sides by clinical method and radiographic method was non-significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion:There was correlation between sagittal condylar guidance obtained by both intraoral gothic arch method as well as radiographic method done on digital panoramic radiographs.Clinical significance: Correct centric jaw relation determines the success of the complete denture. Radiographic and clinical methods provide sufficient minute details necessary for the betterment of management.

Accuracy of radiographic and protrusive occlusal record methods in determining condylar guidance angles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Typically, 26 studies were conducted in India, 1,7,11,13,14,19,20,[23][24][25][26][27]29,30,32,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] two each in Iran 8,28 and Saudi Arabia 22,33 and one each in Nepal, 21 Korea 31 and Poland. 9 In total, 20 studies included were conducted among dentate patients having a total sample size of 595 and age ranged from 18-43 years 1,19,20,21,25,27,30,32,34,[37][38][39][40]42,44 while 15 studies included were conducted among edentulous patients having a total sample size of 277 and age ranged from 35-75 years. [7][8][9]11,…”

“…9 In total, 20 studies included were conducted among dentate patients having a total sample size of 595 and age ranged from 18-43 years 1,19,20,21,25,27,30,32,34,[37][38][39][40]42,44 while 15 studies included were conducted among edentulous patients having a total sample size of 277 and age ranged from 35-75 years. [7][8][9]11,13,14,19,20,[22][23][24]26,28,29,31,33,35,36,41,43 The ethical approval was obtained in 25 studies 1,9,11,13,14,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][30]…”

“…[7][8][9]11,13,14,19,20,[22][23][24]26,28,29,31,33,35,36,41,43 The ethical approval was obtained in 25 studies 1,9,11,13,14,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]38,[40][41][42][43] while informed consent was obtained in only 20 studies. 8,9,11,[20][21][22][23][...…”

“…The brands and the models of the articulator, OPG, CBCT, CT scan, LC and TMJ tomogram varied according to the studies. Radiographically the HCG angle was measured using OPG 1,7-9,14, [19][20][21][22][23][26][27][28][30][31][32][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42 in 24 studies, seven studies recorded HCG angle with CBCT, 8,11,25,31,33,35,43 five studies used LC 1,23,24,29,41 and one study each recorded HCG angle with CT scan 13 and TMJ tomogram. 44 For all of the included studies, the orientation jaw relation was registered utilising face-bow and was transferred on to the semi-adjustable articulator employing mounting jig or extra oral gothic arch tracers, and the protrusive interocclusal record was obtained by instructing the subject to protrude the mandible forward by 6mm.…”

“…Out of the 33 studies, only seven studies were rated as good quality studies, 8,11,25,28,35,37,39 whereas the remaining 26 studies were rated as fair quality studies. 1,7,9,13,14,[19][20][21][22][23][24]26,27,[29][30][31][32][33][34]36,38,[40][41][42][43][44] This fair quality was basically due to no justification of sample size, no assessor blinding and no mention about participation rate and confounder blinding.…”