Maximum intercuspation-centric relationdisharmony in 200 consecutively finished cases in a gnathologically oriented practice

The Role of Maxillofacial Structure and Malocclusion on Condylar Displacement in Maximum Intercuspation and Centric Relation in Patients Seeking Orthodontic Treatment-A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Available knowledge about malocclusion and cephalometric variables and their connection with an increased risk of condylar displacement (CD) is scarce. This article aims to present current information on the relationship between centric relation-maximum intercuspal position discrepancies and maxillofacial morphology and malocclusion in patients seeking orthodontic treatment as well as to identify those who require expanded diagnostic evaluation for this disorder.

METHODS

This review analyzed the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases up to February 2022. Keywords and additional manual searches were performed. Literature selection was based the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The JBI Critical Appraisal Tool assessed the methodological quality of included studies.

RESULTS

The databases search provided 2321 studies. A total of 10 studies were included in this review after eligibility criteria and JBI assessment. This review was separated into five parts that evaluated CD correlations depending on the following: maxillofacial structure in different vertical and sagittal skeletal patterns, vertical, horizontal, and transverse malocclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

A hyperdivergent facial skeletal structure is a risk factor for increased CD, particularly in the vertical dimension. The condylar processes are usually displaced in a posteroinferior direction. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the relationship among remaining skeletal and dental malocclusions and the occurrence of CD.

Centric relation critically revisited-What are the clinical implications?

PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE

Centric relation is a dental term that has undergone many alterations over the years, which in turn have led to significant clinical controversies. These continuing changes in the meaning of the term CR have not only led to confusion, but they also have resulted in a variety of unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Analysis of the dental literature reveals ongoing misunderstanding and disagreement regarding that term among both clinicians and academic dentists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the PubMed database was performed with the following search terms: "centric relation", "masticatory muscles", "maxillomandibular relationship" and "condylar position." Relevant literature from the past 70 years until the present day was meticulously scrutinised.

RESULTS

As expected, the literature review on the topic of CR revealed a problematic pattern of changing definitions and clinical disagreements, all of which have had a significant impact on the practice of dentistry.

CONCLUSION

There are semantic, conceptual and practical reasons for concluding that the term 'centric relation' is flawed. Those flaws have a significant impact on dental practice. Based on our analysis, argumentation is provided to conclude that the term 'centric relation' should be abandoned. Instead, it appears that every individual has a unique temporomandibular joint relationship which cannot be described by any singular term. In healthy dentate patients, this relationship is determined by the maximum intercuspation of the teeth and should therefore be considered as biologically acceptable.

The evolution of temporomandibular disorders: A shift from experience to evidence

After over 80 years of much obsession as well as avoidance of the subject of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), the dental profession is still divided over what they are and how to deal with them. Over this period, nearly every discipline in dentistry has played some role in the development of this field. Unfortunately, a significant amount of this information has been based on personal opinion, experience-based philosophies, or poorly conducted research. Furthermore, each dental specialty has been responsible for contributing to the concepts of the etiology and management of TMDs with their own professional bias; for example, orthodontists describe these problems in orthodontic terms and offer orthodontic treatments or solutions for their patients. As various treatment approaches were found to be effective at least some of the time, this has further led to misinformation and confusion within the profession. Advances in research from diverse fields, including neurophysiology, pain pathophysiology, genetics, endocrinology, behavioral sciences, and psychology, have significantly altered our understanding of TMDs and how they should be managed. The rigid mechanical and dental-based model of the past has been gradually replaced by a biopsychosocial medical model for the diagnosis and treatment of TMDs as well as other acute and chronic pain disorders. This paper discusses the evolution of our understanding of TMDs since they were first described 85 years ago. Contemporary scientific findings and their implications are presented in some detail for clinicians who wish to provide the appropriate management for their orofacial pain patients.

Centric slide in different Angle's classes of occlusion

The purpose of this study was to test the possible differences in centric slide values between different Angle's classes of occlusion. The study included 98 participants divided into four groups: Angle's class I, Angle's class II, subdivision 1, Angle's class II, subdivision 2 and Angle's class III. All recordings were obtained using an ultrasound jaw tracking device with six degrees of freedom. The distance between the maximum intercuspation (reference position) and the centric occlusion was recorded at the condylar level. Anteroposterior, superoinferior and transversal distance of the centric slide were calculated for each participant, and the data were statistically analyzed (analysis of variance and Newman-Keuls post hoc test). No statistically significant difference was found in the anteroposterior and transversal distance of the centric slide between tested groups, while Angle's class II, subdivision 2 showed smaller vertical amount of the centric slide compared to Angle's class I and class II, subdivision 1. None of the 98 participants showed coincidence of centric occlusion and maximum intercuspation. Our results suggest that coincidence of the maximum intercuspation with the centric occlusion should not be expected. Smaller extent of the vertical distance of the centric slide could be morphological and a functional expression characteristic of the Angle's class II, subdivision 2.

[The importance of condyle position in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of TMD]

When a patient presents with TMJ pain, it could be all too easy for the orthodontists to turn the other way claiming that their occlusion has no connection with their symptoms and that they are suffering from a biopsychosocial disorder. This abundantly illustrated article attempts to demonstrate that patients can appear to display a stable occlusion even though their TMJ situation is unstable. This can give rise to dental abrasion, articular adaptations and pain. Orthodontics allows us to treat patients in pain provided that the treatment plan takes into account the need to restore a stable TMJ as well as a stable occlusion.

Condylar position assessed by magnetic resonance imaging after various bite position registrations

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we evaluated the reliability and validity of 3 bite registrations in relation to condylar position in the glenoid fossae using magnetic resonance imaging in a symptom-free population.

METHODS

Nineteen subjects, 14 men and 5 women (ages, 20-39 years) without temporomandibular disorders were examined. Three bite registrations were taken and evaluated on each subject: centric occlusion, centric relation, and Roth power centric relation. The differences in condyle position among the 3 bite registrations were determined for the left and right condyles: centric occlusion-centric relation, centric occlusion-Roth power centric relation, and centric relation-Roth power centric relation for each plane of space.

RESULTS

The results indicated that (1) all measurements collected had large standard deviations and ranges with no statistical significance, and (2) of the 19 subjects and 38 condyles assessed, 33 condyles (87%) were concentric in an anteroposterior plane. In the transverse anatomic plane, all condyles were concentric.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical concept of positioning the condyles in specific positions in the fossae with various bite registrations as a preventive measure for temporomandibular disorders and as a diagnosis and treatment planning tool is not supported by this study.

Centric relation

BACKGROUND

Centric relation (CR) has been a controversial subject in dentistry for more than a century. For at least the past four decades, issues involving CR have been of interest to orthodontists. The definition of CR has changed over the past half-century from a retruded, posterior and, for the most part, superior condyle position to an anterior-superior condyle position.

TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors addressed the historical and contemporary orthodontic perspective of CR. The source material for this review came mainly from literature and searches the lead author accumulated over the last 30 years. As there is no evidence-based (EB) model level 3 (systemic) review on the topic of CR, the best evidence on this subject was gleaned only from a thorough examination and evaluation at EB model level 2 (experience plus best available sample studies). There was, however, enough high-quality EB model level 2 information on the topic of CR for the authors to draw conclusions on the basis of a scientific appraisal of relevant research.

RESULTS

Although the reliability of CR records has been substantiated, the records' validity has little to no evidentiary support. In addition, population-based sample studies and consensus statements from national conferences support the view that the positions of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) condyles in relation to the glenoid fossa or CR position are not diagnostic of temporomandiblar disorders. There appears to be little to no benefit of using gnathologic records and articulator-mounted dental casts to discern discrepancies in maximum intercuspation of the teeth coincident with TMJ condyles in an anterior-superior CR position in orthodontic patients.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The benefit of using gnathologic CR records and articulators in orthodontics has not been substantiated by scientific evidence.