Evaluation of accuracy between extraoral Gothic arch tracing and various other methods assessing horizontal condylar guidance angle in completely edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the accuracy of different methods of measuring horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angle in comparison with extraoral Gothic arch tracing for completely edentulous patients.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two reviewers searched the EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases and the Google Scholar search engine for in vivo studies, randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and quasi-experimental studies published from January 2005 to December 2022 on various other methods of determining HCG angle in completely edentulous patients compared with extraoral Gothic arch tracing method.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Meta-analysis was conducted from the reported quantitative data.

RESULTS

A total of 513 articles were obtained from different electronic databases, of which 22 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 20 studies were included for meta-analysis. For the right side, a statistically significant difference was observed for panoramic radiograph (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 5.08 [2.17, 7]) and cephalogram (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 10.65 [8.81, 12.49]), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) (P = 0.41, pooled mean difference = 4.39 [-6.10, 14.87]) and protrusive interocclusal wax record (P = 0.92, pooled mean difference = -0.45 [-9.62, 8.72]) as compared with extraoral Gothic arch tracing method. For the left side, a statistically significant difference was observed for panoramic radiograph (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 5.07 [1.95, 8.18]) and cephalogram (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 10.24 [8.65, 11.83]), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed for CBCT (P = 0.31, pooled mean difference = 4.05 [-3.74, 11.84]) and protrusive interocclusal wax record (P = 0.72, pooled mean difference = -1.21 [-7.86, 5.43]) as compared with extraoral Gothic arch tracing method.

CONCLUSION

The cephalogram and panoramic radiograph obtained higher HCG angles in completely edentulous patients than extraoral Gothic arch tracing.