Logo do repositório

Comparison of different methods for obtaining centric relation: a systematic review

dc.contributor.authorDe Moraes Melo Neto, Clóvis Lamartine [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDa Silva, Emily Vivianne Freitas [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDe Sousa Ervolino, Isabela Caroline [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDos Santos, Daniela Micheline [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDe Magalhães Bertoz, André Pinheiro [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorGoiato, Marcelo Coelho [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-29T20:04:28Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-01
dc.description.abstractThe objective of this study was to compare techniques of different methods of obtaining centric relation to verify which technique generates the greatest reproducibility of the centric relation. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published up to May 15, 2018. The search terms were combinations of dental centric relationwith each of the following terms (individually): reproducibility of findings; jaw relation record; chin point; gothic arch; bimanual manipulation; swallowing; and jig.The inclusion criteria included clinical studies in English that had to compare at least 2 techniques representing different methods for obtaining centric relation (based on the reproducibility of the centric relation) in individuals without temporomandibular dysfunction; and studies performed in individuals with complete or nearly complete dentition or complete edentulism. Methods (techniques) included in this study were guided methods (chin point guidance and bimanual manipulation); graphic methods (intraoral and extraoral gothic arch tracing); and physiologic methods (swallowing and tongue retrusion along the palate). A total of 1638 articles were identified. After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 7 articles were included in this review. None of the reviewed studies evaluated edentulous individuals. Two articles compared physiologic methods with guided methods; one concluded that the swallowing technique generates greater variability than guided methods, and the other concluded that there was no difference between the swallowing technique and chin point guidance. Of 5 articles comparing intraoral gothic arch tracing with guided methods, 2 showed similar results between different methods, 2 showed superior results for gothic arch tracing, and 1 showed superior results for the guided methods. Based on the guided methods and swallowing technique, it is not possible to conclude which technique can generate the greatest reproducibility of the centric relation. It is possible to suggest that in most cases intraoral gothic arch tracing is superior or equivalent when compared to guided methods.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of Dentistry
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Pediatric and Social Dentistry UNESP School of Dentistry
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of Dentistry
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Pediatric and Social Dentistry UNESP School of Dentistry
dc.format.extent31-36
dc.identifier.citationGeneral Dentistry, v. 69, n. 1, p. 31-36, 2021.
dc.identifier.issn0363-6771
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85099113852
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11449/305882
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofGeneral Dentistry
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectdental centric relation
dc.subjectjaw relation record
dc.subjectreproducibility of findings
dc.titleComparison of different methods for obtaining centric relation: a systematic reviewen
dc.typeResenhapt
dspace.entity.typePublication

Arquivos

Coleções