Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(02): 251-257
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735903
Review Article

Comparison of Techniques for Obtaining Centric Relation Based on the Reproducibility of the Condylar Positions in Centric Relation—A Systematic Review

Clóvis Lamartine de Moraes Melo Neto 
1   Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Daniela Micheline dos Santos
1   Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil
2   Oral Oncology Center, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil
,
André Pinheiro de Magalhães Bertoz
3   Department of Pediatric and Social Dentistry, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil
,
André Luiz de Melo Moreno
1   Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Marcelo Coelho Goiato
1   Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil
2   Oral Oncology Center, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The objective of this systematic review was to compare centric relation (CR) techniques that belong to the same method of obtaining CR (guided, graphical, or physiological method), to verify which CR technique within each method of obtaining CR generates the greatest reproducibility of the condylar positions (or mandibular position) in CR. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published up to May 5, 2021. The search terms were combinations of “dental centric relation” (MeSH), with each of the following terms (individually): “reproducibility of findings” (MeSH); “jaw relation record” (MeSH); “chin point”; “gothic arch”; “bimanual manipulation”; “swallowing” (MeSH); and “jig.” Inclusion criteria: clinical studies in English; individuals without temporomandibular dysfunction and with complete or almost complete dentition or complete edentulous; and comparison between CR techniques belonging to the same method of obtaining CR based on the reproducibility of condylar positions in CR. For each method of obtaining the CR, the following CR techniques were considered: guided method (chin point guidance and bimanual manipulation); graphic method (intraoral and extraoral gothic arch tracing); and physiologic method (swallowing and tongue retrusion along the palate). A total of 1692 articles were screened. After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, six articles were included in this review. None of the included studies evaluated edentulous individuals. All included articles compared CR techniques of the guided method. Three articles concluded that the bimanual technique showed greater reproducibility of the condylar positions in CR than the chin point guidance technique, two articles showed equivalence between these techniques, and 1 article concluded that the chin point guidance technique showed greater reproducibility of the condylar positions in CR than the bimanual technique. Thus, in this systematic review, the bimanual technique was often superior (generated greater reproducibility of the CR) or at least equivalent to the chin point guidance technique. Therefore, for individuals with complete dentition and without temporomandibular disorders, the bimanual technique is more recommended.

Keywords

dental centric relation - reproducibility of findings - jaw relation record - chin point guidance - bimanual manipulation - gothic arch - swallowing


Publication History

Article published online:
17 December 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 The glossary of prosthodontic terms: ninth edition. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117 (5S): e1-e105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 de Moraes Melo Neto CL, da Silva EVF, de Sousa Ervolino IC, Dos Santos DM, de Magalhães Bertoz AP, Goiato MC. Comparison of different methods for obtaining centric relation: a systematic review. Gen Dent 2021; 69 (01) 31-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Palaskar JN, Murali R, Bansal S. Centric relation definition: a historical and contemporary prosthodontic perspective. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013; 13 (03) 149-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wilson PHR, Banerjee A. Recording the retruded contact position: a review of clinical techniques. Br Dent J 2004; 196 (07) 395-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8 (05) 336-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D. et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17 (01) 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kantor ME, Silverman SI, Garfinkel L. Centric-relation recording techniques–a comparative investigation. J Prosthet Dent 1972; 28 (06) 593-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Simon RL, Nicholls JI. Variability of passively recorded centric relation. J Prosthet Dent 1980; 44 (01) 21-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Teo CS, Wise MD. Comparison of retruded axis articular mountings with and without applied muscular force. J Oral Rehabil 1981; 8 (04) 363-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hobo S, Iwata T. Reproducibility of mandibular centricity in three dimensions. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53 (05) 649-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Keshvad A, Winstanley RB. Comparison of the replicability of routinely used centric relation registration techniques. J Prosthodont 2003; 12 (02) 90-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Galeković NH, Fugošić V, Braut V, Ćelić R. Reproducibility of centric relation techniques by means of condyle position analysis. Acta Stomatol Croat 2017; 51 (01) 13-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kantor ME, Silverman SI, Garfinkel L. Centric relation recording techniques: a comparative investigation. J Prosthet Dent 1973; 30 (4 Pt 2): 604-606
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Carwell ML, McFall Jr WT. Centric relation determinations: clinical and radiographic comparisons. J Periodontol 1981; 52 (07) 347-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 McWilliam JS, Isberg-Holm A, Hellsing G. A radiographic analysis of small changes in condylar position. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1982; 11 (02) 99-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hellsing G, Isberg-Holm A, McWilliam J. A comparative study of two techniques for recording centric relation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1983; 12 (01) 5-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Watanabe Y. Use of personal computers for Gothic arch tracing: analysis and evaluation of horizontal mandibular positions with edentulous prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 82 (05) 562-572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McKee JR. Comparing condylar position repeatability for standardized versus nonstandardized methods of achieving centric relation. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77 (03) 280-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Federick DR, Pameijer CH, Stallard RE. A correlation between force and distalization of the mandible in obtaining centric relation. J Periodontol 1974; 45 (02) 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Campos AA, Nathanson D, Rose L. Reproducibility and condylar position of a physiologic maxillomandibular centric relation in upright and supine body position. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76 (03) 282-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Abbad NB, Srivastava R, Choukse V, Sharma V. Validity and reliability of intraoral conventional tracer and intraoral digital tracer in different positions for recording horizontal jaw relation in edentulous patients. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019; 19 (02) 159-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Latta Jr GH. Influence of circadian periodicity on reproducibility of centric relation records for edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68 (05) 780-783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shafagh I, Yoder JL, Thayer KE. Diurnal variance of centric relation position. J Prosthet Dent 1975; 34 (05) 574-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Linsen SS, Stark H, Klitzschmüller M. Reproducibility of condyle position and influence of splint therapy on different registration techniques in asymptomatic volunteers. Cranio 2013; 31 (01) 32-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dupas PH, Picart B, Lefevre C, Graux E. Centric relation and programming semiadjustable articulators with the universal jig. Part I: Technique. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64 (02) 134-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nassar MSP, Palinkas M, Regalo SCH. et al. The effect of a Lucia jig for 30 minutes on neuromuscular re-programming, in normal subjects. Braz Oral Res 2012; 26 (06) 530-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Karl PJ, Foley TF. The use of a deprogramming appliance to obtain centric relation records. Angle Orthod 1999; 69 (02) 117-124 , discussion 124–125
    PubMedGoogle Scholar