Ogawa T, Ogimoto T, Koyano K
The Jane and Jerry Weintraub Center for Reconstructive Biotechnology, Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Biomaterials and Hospital Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1668, USA.
J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Oct;28(10):976-81. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00746.x.
No clear description can be found regarding the lateral position when examining non-working-side occlusal contacts. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the non-working-side contact pattern varies with the mandibular position. The characteristics of the non-working-side contact pattern were also determined relative to the working-side contact pattern. Occlusal contacts of 86 young adults were examined using shim stock in standardized lateral positions: 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 mm from the maximum intercuspation (MI), where the 0.5, 1 and 2 mm positions were defined as lateral positions close to the MI and the 3 mm position as an edge-to-edge position. The frequency of non-working-side occlusal contacts decreased gradually from 0.5 to 3 mm position. The frequency of non-working-side contacts was significantly greater in the 0.5 and 1 mm positions than in the 3 mm position. Non-working-side occlusal contacts occurred in nearly half of the 0.5 mm positions. Non-working-side contacts were significantly less frequent with canine protection than with group function for the 0.5 and 1 mm positions. There were no significant differences between the two occlusal schemes for the 2 and 3 mm positions. In conclusions, the non-working-side contact pattern varied with the mandibular position. These results suggest that clinical examination should include contact patterns both in a position close to the MI and in an edge-to-edge position, i.e. in functional and parafunctional ranges. Likewise, data from occlusal contact research should include a standardized definition of mandibular position.
在检查非工作侧咬合接触时，关于侧向位置尚无明确描述。本研究的目的是检验非工作侧接触模式随下颌位置变化的假设。还相对于工作侧接触模式确定了非工作侧接触模式的特征。使用薄垫片在标准化侧向位置检查了86名年轻成年人的咬合接触：从最大牙尖交错位（MI）分别为0.5、1、2和3毫米，其中0.5、1和2毫米位置被定义为接近MI的侧向位置，3毫米位置为对刃位置。非工作侧咬合接触的频率从0.5毫米位置到3毫米位置逐渐降低。0.5和1毫米位置的非工作侧接触频率明显高于3毫米位置。近一半的0.5毫米位置出现非工作侧咬合接触。对于0.5和1毫米位置，犬牙保护型的非工作侧接触频率明显低于组功能型。2和3毫米位置的两种咬合方案之间无显著差异。总之，非工作侧接触模式随下颌位置而变化。这些结果表明，临床检查应包括接近MI的位置和对刃位置的接触模式，即在功能和副功能范围内。同样，咬合接触研究的数据应包括下颌位置的标准化定义。
