Accuracy of radiographic and protrusive occlusal record methods in determining condylar guidance angles: a systematic review and meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 1 approved]
Background: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the accuracy of radiographic and protrusive occlusal record (POR) methods in determining horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angles in dentate and edentulous patients. Methods: Studies assessing condylar guiding angles in dentulo...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article PeerReviewed |
| Language: | English English English English English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://repository.unair.ac.id/123584/1/14.pdf https://repository.unair.ac.id/123584/2/14.pdf https://repository.unair.ac.id/123584/3/14.pdf https://repository.unair.ac.id/123584/4/14.pdf https://repository.unair.ac.id/123584/9/14.pdf https://repository.unair.ac.id/123584/ |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Universitas Airlangga |
| Language: | English English English English English |
| Summary: | Background: The objective of this systematic review was to compare
the accuracy of radiographic and protrusive occlusal record (POR)
methods in determining horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angles in
dentate and edentulous patients.
Methods: Studies assessing condylar guiding angles in
dentulous/partially edentulous and totally edentulous patients free of
temporomandibular disorders using both radiographic and protrusive
occlusal record methods were included. A comprehensive search with
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,
Web of Science, Google Scholar and Open Grey databases was done.
Two reviewers extracted the data after eligibility assessment. Study
quality was examined using the NIH quality assessment tool and
graded based on tooth selection, number of root canals assessed,
study environment, number of observers, test reliability report,
validation approach, validation criteria, and validity reliability. A metaanalysis of pooled data, subgroups and sensitivity analysis was
performed using RevMan (P<0.05).
Results: The qualitative synthesis contained 33 papers, 32 of which
were included in the meta-analysis. The standardised mean difference
between the radiographic and protrusive occlusal record methods for
right and left HCG angle in dentate patients was 0.68 [0.37, 0.98] and
0.63 [0.32, 0.95], respectively, and for right and left HCG angle in
edentulous patients was 0.80 [0.36, 1.24] and 0.66 [0.18, 1.15],
indicating a statistically significant difference (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Clinical variability among the selected studies could not
be completely avoided and the sample sizes were limited, resulting in Background: The objective of this systematic review was to compare
the accuracy of radiographic and protrusive occlusal record (POR)
methods in determining horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angles in
dentate and edentulous patients.
Methods: Studies assessing condylar guiding angles in
dentulous/partially edentulous and totally edentulous patients free of
temporomandibular disorders using both radiographic and protrusive
occlusal record methods were included. A comprehensive search with
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,
Web of Science, Google Scholar and Open Grey databases was done.
Two reviewers extracted the data after eligibility assessment. Study
quality was examined using the NIH quality assessment tool and
graded based on tooth selection, number of root canals assessed,
study environment, number of observers, test reliability report,
validation approach, validation criteria, and validity reliability. A metaanalysis of pooled data, subgroups and sensitivity analysis was
performed using RevMan (P<0.05).
Results: The qualitative synthesis contained 33 papers, 32 of which
were included in the meta-analysis. The standardised mean difference
between the radiographic and protrusive occlusal record methods for
right and left HCG angle in dentate patients was 0.68 [0.37, 0.98] and
0.63 [0.32, 0.95], respectively, and for right and left HCG angle in
edentulous patients was 0.80 [0.36, 1.24] and 0.66 [0.18, 1.15],
indicating a statistically significant difference (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Clinical variability among the selected studies could not
be completely avoided and the sample sizes were limited, resulting inBackground: The objective of this systematic review was to compare
the accuracy of radiographic and protrusive occlusal record (POR)
methods in determining horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angles in
dentate and edentulous patients.
Methods: Studies assessing condylar guiding angles in
dentulous/partially edentulous and totally edentulous patients free of
temporomandibular disorders using both radiographic and protrusive
occlusal record methods were included. A comprehensive search with
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,
Web of Science, Google Scholar and Open Grey databases was done.
Two reviewers extracted the data after eligibility assessment. Study
quality was examined using the NIH quality assessment tool and
graded based on tooth selection, number of root canals assessed,
study environment, number of observers, test reliability report,
validation approach, validation criteria, and validity reliability. A metaanalysis of pooled data, subgroups and sensitivity analysis was
performed using RevMan (P<0.05).
Results: The qualitative synthesis contained 33 papers, 32 of which
were included in the meta-analysis. The standardised mean difference
between the radiographic and protrusive occlusal record methods for
right and left HCG angle in dentate patients was 0.68 [0.37, 0.98] and
0.63 [0.32, 0.95], respectively, and for right and left HCG angle in
edentulous patients was 0.80 [0.36, 1.24] and 0.66 [0.18, 1.15],
indicating a statistically significant difference (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Clinical variability among the selected studies could not
be completely avoided and the sample sizes were limited, resulting inBackground: The objective of this systematic review was to compare
the accuracy of radiographic and protrusive occlusal record (POR)
methods in determining horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angles in
dentate and edentulous patients.
Methods: Studies assessing condylar guiding angles in
dentulous/partially edentulous and totally edentulous patients free of
temporomandibular disorders using both radiographic and protrusive
occlusal record methods were included. A comprehensive search with
PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,
Web of Science, Google Scholar and Open Grey databases was done.
Two reviewers extracted the data after eligibility assessment. Study
quality was examined using the NIH quality assessment tool and
graded based on tooth selection, number of root canals assessed,
study environment, number of observers, test reliability report,
validation approach, validation criteria, and validity reliability. A metaanalysis of pooled data, subgroups and sensitivity analysis was
performed using RevMan (P<0.05).
Results: The qualitative synthesis contained 33 papers, 32 of which
were included in the meta-analysis. The standardised mean difference
between the radiographic and protrusive occlusal record methods for
right and left HCG angle in dentate patients was 0.68 [0.37, 0.98] and
0.63 [0.32, 0.95], respectively, and for right and left HCG angle in
edentulous patients was 0.80 [0.36, 1.24] and 0.66 [0.18, 1.15],
indicating a statistically significant difference (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Clinical variability among the selected studies could not
be completely avoided and the sample sizes were limited, resulting in a lack of statistical power. To rule out potential causes of
heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were done
separately for dentate and edentulous individuals for the right and
left HCG angle. The present systematic review and meta-analysis
concluded that for the dentate and edentulous patients, the right and
left HCG angle values determined by radiographic method showed
statistically significant difference as compared to the protrusive
occlusal records |
|---|