Suppr超能文献

常规使用的正中关系记录技术的可重复性比较。

Comparison of the replicability of routinely used centric relation registration techniques.

作者信息

Keshvad Alireza, Winstanley Raymond B

机构信息

Department of Adult Dental Care, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffeld, Sheffield, UK.

出版信息

J Prosthodont. 2003 Jun;12(2):90-101. doi: 10.1016/S1059-941X(03)00036-6.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to determine statistically the most repeatable mandibular position of 3 centric relation methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three centric relation recording methods commonly reported in the literature were selected: bimanual mandibular manipulation with a jig, chin point guidance with a jig, and Gothic arch tracing. Fourteen healthy adult volunteers (7 males and 7 females), with an average age of 26.61 +/- 4.20 years and no history of extractions, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, or orthodontic treatment, were selected for the study. Accurate casts were mounted on an articulator (Denar D4A) by means of a facebow and maximum intercuspation silicone registration record. A mechanical 3-dimensional mandibular position indicator was constructed and mounted on the articulator enabling the operator to analyze the mandibular positions in 3 spatial axes (x, anteroposterior; y, superoinferior; z, mediolateral shift). Each centric relation method was recorded four times on each subject (at baseline, 1 hour, 1 day, and 1 week at approximately the same time of day). Records were transferred to the articulator, and data were extracted using a stereomicroscope modified to accept the mandibular position indicator.

RESULTS

Variability within subjects ranged from 0.03 mm (left-side z axis for the bimanual method) to 1.6 mm (left-side y axis for the Gothic arch method). To indicate the least variable (most repeatable) method a comparison was made using the F test. The bimanual method was the most consistent, showing between 10.11 (p = 1) and 0.438 (p = 0.005) times less variation than the Gothic arch method (the least consistent). The repeatability of the chin point guidance method was somewhere between the other 2 methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that of the 3 centric relation methods evaluated, the bimanual manipulation method positioned the condyles in the temporomandibular joint with a more consistent repeatability than the other 2 methods, whereas the Gothic arch was the least consistent method.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在通过统计学方法确定三种正中关系记录方法中下颌位置最具重复性的方法。

材料与方法

选择了文献中常见的三种正中关系记录方法:使用定位器的双手下颌操作法、使用定位器的颏点引导法和哥特弓描记法。选取14名健康成年志愿者(7名男性和7名女性),平均年龄为26.61±4.20岁,无拔牙史、颞下颌关节功能障碍或正畸治疗史,参与本研究。通过面弓和最大牙尖交错位硅橡胶记录,将精确的模型安装在咬合架(Denar D4A)上。构建并安装了一个机械三维下颌位置指示器在咬合架上,使操作人员能够在三个空间轴(x,前后方向;y,上下方向;z,内外侧移位)上分析下颌位置。每种正中关系记录方法在每个受试者身上记录4次(在基线、1小时、1天和1周时,大约在每天的同一时间)。记录被转移到咬合架上,并使用经过改装以容纳下颌位置指示器的体视显微镜提取数据。

结果

受试者内部的变异性范围为0.03毫米(双手操作法左侧z轴)至1.6毫米(哥特弓法左侧y轴)。为了表明变异性最小(最具重复性)的方法,使用F检验进行了比较。双手操作法最为一致,其变异性比哥特弓法(最不一致)少10.11倍(p = 1)至0.438倍(p = 0.005)。颏点引导法的重复性介于其他两种方法之间。

结论

本研究结果表明,在所评估的三种正中关系记录方法中,双手操作法在下颌关节中定位髁突时比其他两种方法具有更一致的重复性,而哥特弓法是最不一致的方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验