An In Vivo Study to Determine a Mathematical Formula to Relate Horizontal Condylar Guidance Angle Derived Clinically and Radiographically
Gopala Krishna Keerthi, Pulagam Mahesh, Srinivas R Pottem, Gantasala Divya
Citation Information :
Keerthi GK, Mahesh P, Pottem SR, Divya G. An In Vivo Study to Determine a Mathematical Formula to Relate Horizontal Condylar Guidance Angle Derived Clinically and Radiographically. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2020; 10 (4):158-162.
Aim: Present study aims to derive the condylar guidance angle both clinically and radiographically and relate them by a mathematical formula.
Materials and methods: The study was conducted on 22 patients and both the clinically and radiographically derived condylar guidance values are used to derive a mathematical formula. Students t test and Pearson correlation test was done to find the difference between sagittal condylar guidance angle between protrusive interocclusal records and panoramic radiographs.
Results: The model of regression for right side was hypothesized and equation obtained was y = −0.080x + 23.49, while the model of regression for left side was hypothesized and equation obtained was y = −0.101x + 25.12, where y = dependent variable (condylar guidance value obtained by panoramic radiographs) and x = constant variable (condylar guidance value obtained by protrusive interocclusal records). The present study found that on the right side, there was a statistically significant (p = 0.019) difference in the mean protrusive interocclusal records (17.04 ± 6.61) and the panoramic radiographs (22.12 ± 7.2) whereas it was not significant (p = 0.101) on the left side.
Conclusion: From the observations, it can be concluded that the radiographically obtained condylar guidance angles were higher than the clinically derived angles.
Okeson JP. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. 6th ed.; CV Mosby; 2008.
Hobo S, Takayama H. Oral rehabilitation: clinical determination of occlusion, 1st ed.; Quintessence, 1997. p. 168.
Van Reenen JF, Thomas CJ. A practical approach to balanced occlusion. J Dent Assoc South Africa 1967;22:377.
Christensen L, Slabbert J. The concept of the sagittal condylar guidance: biological fact or fallacy? J Oral Rehabil 1978;5(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1978.tb00384.x.
Zamacona J, Otaduy E, Aranda E. Study of the sagittal condylar path in edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(2):314–317. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90336-9.
Eriksson AG, Öckert-Eriksson G, Lockowandt P, et al. Clinical factors and clinical variation influencing the reproducibility of interocclusal recording methods. Br Dent J 2002;192(7):395–400. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801384.
Frazier Q, Wesley RC, Lutes MR, et al. The relative repeatability of plaster interocclusal eccentric records for articulator adjustment in construction of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1971;26(5):456–466. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(71)90003-5.
Gilboa I, Cardash H, KaffE I, et al. Condylar guidance: correlation between articular morphology and panoramic radiographic images in dry human skulls. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(6):477–481. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60112-2.
Tannamala P, Pulagam M, Pottem S, et al. Condylar guidance: correlation between protrusive interocclusal record and panoramic radiographic image: a pilot study. J Prosthod 2012;21(3):181–184. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00811.x.
Paixão MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, et al. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dental Press J. Orthod [online] 2010;15(6):123–130. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512010000600016.
Nouri M, Hamidiaval S, Baghban AA, et al. Efficacy of newly designed cephalometric analysis software for McNamara analysis in comparison with Dolphin software. J Dent (Tehran) 2015;12(1):60–69.
Aull A. Condylar determinants of occlusal patterns. J Prosthet Dent 1965;15(5):826–884. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(65)90122-8.
Helkimo M. Prosthodontic treatment of partially edentulous patients. Various centric positions and methods of recording them Zarb GA, Bergman B, Clayton JA, et al., ed., Saint Louis: CV Mosby; 1978. pp. 171–187.
Shetty S, Satish Babu C, Tambake D, et al. Comparative evaluation of condylar guidance value from radiograph with interocclusal records made during jaw relation and try-in: a pilot study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:321–326. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-013-0284-4.
Shreshta P, Jain V, Bhalla A, et al. A comparative study to measure the condylar guidance by the radiographic and clinical methods. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4(3):153–157. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.3.153.
Shah N, Hegde C, Prasad D. A clinico-radiographic analysis of sagittal condylar guidance determined by protrusive interocclusal registration and panoramic radiographic images in humans. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(4):383–387. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.107419.
Shah JR, Agarwal P, Negi P. A comparative analysis of sagittal condylar guidance determined by two articulator systems and orthopantomographs (OPG) in completely edentulous patients. Indian J Dent Sci 2013;5:72–76.
Shah K, Patel, Chabra T, et al. Correlation of the condylar guidance obtained by protrusive interocclusal record and panoramic radiographs in completely edentulous patients: an in vivo study. Adv Hum Biol 2014;4:50–56.
Venkateshwaran R, Karthigeyan S, Manoharan P, et al. A newer technique to program a semiadjustable articulator. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2014;6(5):135–139. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.137421.
Patil R, Dubey S, Patil A, et al. Correlation between sagittal condylar guidance obtained by gothic arch tracing an interocclusal record and by panoramic radiographic tracing in edentulous subjects: a clinico radiographic analysis. IOSR-JDMS 2015;14:57–59.
