| Literature DB >> 32039080 |
Harisha Dewan1, Tariq I Akkam2, Hitesh Chohan3, Abdulrahmaan Sherwani2, Feras Masha2, Mohammed Dhae2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine the condylar guidance by the conventional method using interocclusal records and by panoramic radiographs in healthy dentate patients and to compare the values obtained from panoramic radiographs with the values obtained by a conventional method.Entities:
Keywords: Condylar guidance; interocclusal records; panoramic radiograph
Year: 2019 PMID: 32039080 PMCID: PMC6905319 DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_11_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int Soc Prev Community Dent ISSN: 2231-0762
Figure 1Facebow registration
Figure 2Facebow and mounting of maxillary and mandibular cast
Figure 3Interocclusal records
Figure 4Programming of the articulator
Figure 5Condylar guidance measured from the OPG (Red line - Outline of the glenoid fossa and articular eminence; Yellow line - Frankfort’s plane; Blue line - joins deepest point on the glenoid fossa (Point A) and highest point on the articular eminence (Point B))
Condylar guidance on the right and left side obtained from interocclusal record method and radiographic method
| S. no. | IRM right (in degree) | RM right (in degree) | IRM left (in degree) | RM left (in degree) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 45 | 54.2 | 52 | 44.6 |
| 2 | 30 | 38.7 | 35 | 39.1 |
| 3 | 35 | 45.5 | 32 | 50.4 |
| 4 | 40 | 51.2 | 32 | 44.6 |
| 5 | 50 | 42.4 | 40 | 49.3 |
| 6 | 35 | 39.9 | 35 | 32.6 |
| 7 | 40 | 48.1 | 41 | 39.7 |
| 8 | 30 | 48.6 | 37.5 | 43.4 |
| 9 | 35 | 46.7 | 35 | 52.1 |
| 10 | 50 | 47.8 | 40 | 51 |
| 11 | 30 | 42.2 | 30 | 39.9 |
| 12 | 20 | 36.1 | 20 | 28.7 |
| 13 | 40 | 50.6 | 40 | 49.1 |
| 14 | 45 | 45.7 | 40 | 43 |
| 15 | 25 | 31.5 | 25 | 29.2 |
| 16 | 28 | 40.9 | 30 | 31.5 |
| 17 | 25 | 26.5 | 35 | 37.3 |
| 18 | 25 | 30.5 | 42 | 37.3 |
| 19 | 25 | 26.7 | 32 | 31.3 |
| 20 | 42 | 45.5 | 45 | 54.4 |
| 21 | 50 | 51.3 | 35 | 50.5 |
| 22 | 25 | 48.8 | 30 | 49.8 |
| 23 | 25 | 35.9 | 32 | 39.3 |
| 24 | 40 | 45 | 30 | 44.3 |
| 25 | 50 | 49.3 | 50 | 51.3 |
| 26 | 30 | 33.7 | 30 | 42.2 |
| 27 | 46 | 35.6 | 35 | 33.9 |
| 28 | 38 | 42.4 | 35 | 36.6 |
| 29 | 42 | 44.5 | 45 | 54.5 |
| 30 | 50 | 51.3 | 35 | 50.5 |
Important values of right and left side interocclusal record method and radiographic method
| Parameters | IRM right (in degree) | IRM left (in degree) | RM right (in degree) | RM left (in degree) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size ( | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Mean | 36.37 | 35.85 | 42.57 | 42.71 |
| Std. deviation | 9.42 | 6.87 | 7.60 | 7.84 |
| Std. error | 1.72 | 1.25 | 1.39 | 1.43 |
| Median | 36.50 | 35.00 | 44.75 | 43.20 |
| Variance | 88.65 | 47.23 | 57.78 | 61.51 |
| Minimum | 20.00 | 20.00 | 26.50 | 28.70 |
| Maximum | 50.00 | 52.00 | 54.20 | 54.50 |
| Range | 30.00 | 32.00 | 27.70 | 25.80 |
| Interquartile range | 17.75 | 8.50 | 12.60 | 13.30 |
| Skewness | 0.03 | 0.31 | −0.64 | −0.22 |
| Std. error of skewness | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.43 |
| Kurtosis | −1.29 | 0.64 | −0.47 | −1.12 |
| Std. error of kurtosis | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
Significant difference in the interocclusal record method and radiographic method on both the right and left sides
| Methods | Mean | Std. deviation | Mean rank | Critical value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right side | |||||
| IRM (in degree) | 36.37 | 9.42 | 11.13 | −3.867 | <0.001* |
| RM (in degree) | 42.57 | 7.60 | 16.17 | ||
| Left side | |||||
| IRM (in degree) | 35.85 | 6.87 | 6.92 | −3.929 | <0.001* |
| RM (in degree) | 42.71 | 7.84 | 17.65 |
The RM had a significantly higher value than IRM on right and left sides
Graph 1Comparison of the mean Condylar guidance values on the right and left side obtained from interocclusal record method and radiographic method. There was a significant difference in the IRM and RM on both right and left sides. The RM (in degree) had significantly higher value than IRM on right and left sides
Positive correlation between interocclusal record method and radiographic method
| Test statistics | IRM left | RM left | RM right | RM left |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson correlation | 0.614 | 0.697 | 0.658 | 0.537 |
| <0.001* | <0.001* | <0.001* | 0.002* |
There was a significant positive correlation between IRM on the left and right side (r = 0.614)
There was a significant positive correlation between RM on the left and right side (r = 0.697)
There was a significant positive correlation between RM and IRM on the right side (r = 0.658)
There was a significant positive correlation between RM and IRM on the left side (r = 0.537)
* p value is highly significant.
Graph 2Graph showing a significant positive correlation of IRM on the left and right side (r = 0.614). There was a significantly positive correlation of IRM on the left and right side (r = 0.614)
Graph 5Graph showing a significant positive correlation of IRM with RM on the left side (r = 0.658). There was a significantly positive correlation of IRM with RM on the left side (r = 0.658)