OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that there is no relationship between static occlusion and dynamic occlusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The relationship between static and dynamic occlusion was investigated in a sample of 94 dental students (39 males and 55 females) with an age range of 21-30 years. Static occlusion was determined by intraoral examination. Dynamic occlusion was determined in regulated lateral (0.5 mm and 3 mm lateral to the intercuspal position) and protrusive movements of the mandible by intraoral examination with the aid of shimstock. RESULTS: At the 0.5 mm lateral excursion, 24.5% had bilateral group function and 12.7% had bilateral canine guidance. At the 3 mm positions, the guidance pattern changed to a predominantly canine guidance. Fifty percent of subjects had bilateral canine guidance, and only 8.8% had bilateral group function. In terms of the anterior guidance pattern, a predominant anterior contact with posterior disocclusion (77.5%) was noted. Examination of the relationship between static and dynamic occlusions revealed that at the 0.5 mm position, the pattern of dynamic occlusion was different in relation to various static occlusion features but without reaching a significant level. While at the 3 mm position, the pattern of dynamic occlusion was significantly affected by incisor relationship. The distribution of protrusive excursion patterns was significantly influenced by incisor, canine, and molar relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is rejected. An association exists between dynamic occlusion and different aspects of static occlusion.
OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that there is no relationship between static occlusion and dynamic occlusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The relationship between static and dynamic occlusion was investigated in a sample of 94 dental students (39 males and 55 females) with an age range of 21-30 years. Static occlusion was determined by intraoral examination. Dynamic occlusion was determined in regulated lateral (0.5 mm and 3 mm lateral to the intercuspal position) and protrusive movements of the mandible by intraoral examination with the aid of shimstock. RESULTS: At the 0.5 mm lateral excursion, 24.5% had bilateral group function and 12.7% had bilateral canine guidance. At the 3 mm positions, the guidance pattern changed to a predominantly canine guidance. Fifty percent of subjects had bilateral canine guidance, and only 8.8% had bilateral group function. In terms of the anterior guidance pattern, a predominant anterior contact with posterior disocclusion (77.5%) was noted. Examination of the relationship between static and dynamic occlusions revealed that at the 0.5 mm position, the pattern of dynamic occlusion was different in relation to various static occlusion features but without reaching a significant level. While at the 3 mm position, the pattern of dynamic occlusion was significantly affected by incisor relationship. The distribution of protrusive excursion patterns was significantly influenced by incisor, canine, and molar relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is rejected. An association exists between dynamic occlusion and different aspects of static occlusion.