The Experts below are selected from a list of 213 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
A. J. J. Zonnenberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Criticism upon the systematic review (SR) 'Centric Relation-intercuspal position discrepancy and its Relationship with temporomandibular disorders'.
Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2019Co-Authors: A. J. J. ZonnenbergAbstract:To the editorAfter thorough reading the publication ‘Centric Relation–intercuspal position discrepancy and its Relationship with temporomandibular disorders. A systematic review (SR)’, by Jimenez S...
-
Reproducibility of 2 methods to locate Centric Relation in healthy individuals and TMD patients.
The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry, 2012Co-Authors: A. J. J. Zonnenberg, Jan MulderAbstract:No conclusive evidence exists for any maxillomandibular Relationship as the preferable treatment position. Measurement reliability of 2 different methods to attempt to locate Centric Relation in control and TMD patients was assessed to determine if both methods lead to the same position. A group of 27 controls and 91 TMD patients were examined using the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD). Three patient groups were recruited: 27 patients with myofascial pain (MYO), 34 patients with disc displacement without reduction (ID), and 30 patients with osteoarthritis (OA). For each study participant Centric Relation was located with chinpoint guidance and a technique with a leaf gauge, for the controls once, for all TMD patients before and after stabilization splint treatment. The mixed model procedure revealed no significant differences between the methods, the patient groups and the time interval. However the patient groups at baseline and conclusion of treatment differed significantly from the controls. The percentage of patients (15.9%) having a coincident split-cast result for both methods was significantly smaller (P < 0.001) than the corresponding percentage (85.2%) of controls. After splint treatment, the percentage of coincident split-casts increased from 15.9% to 76.8%. Both methods are reproducible techniques to locate Centric Relation for control and TMD patients. However, the leaf gauge provides the clinician a different Centric Relation position in TMD patients than chinpoint guidance does.
-
Variability of Centric Relation position in TMD patients.
The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry, 2006Co-Authors: A. J. J. Zonnenberg, Jan MulderAbstract:Reproducibility of the Centric Relation position for patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is not documented in the current literature. It was the objective of this study to assess clinical variability of the Centric Relation position for TMD patients with a muscle-determined technique by means of an anterior deprogramming device, the leaf gauge. A sample of 60 patients with signs of TMD was selected, 8 men (Mean age 28,6, SD 5,2) and 52 women (Mean age 30,5, SD 10,1). All patients were examined with the Research Diagnostic Criteria, including pain on movement and/or function, mouth opening, joint sounds and palpation of masticatory muscles. All 60 patients were allocated to one of the following diagnostic subgroups: myofascial pain, disk displacement with reduction, disk displacement without reduction, osteoarthritis, trauma. Twelve control subjects were taken from a previous study. Three sequential Centric Relation records were taken; the first one was used to mount a set of casts to an articulator. Criteria of precision were formulated beforehand: 2 out of 3 Centric Relation records had to be identical in a split-cast procedure. Variables XL and XR represented mandibular displacement in the sagittal plane, variables YL and YR in the transversal plane, and ZL and ZR in the vertical plane, on the left and right condylar level respectively. Variables XMIN, YMIN and ZMIN represented the minimal sagittal, transversal and vertical displacement left or right respectively. Likewise, variables XMAX, YMAX and ZMAX represented the maximal sagittal, transversal and vertical displacement left or right. XDIFF, YDIFF and ZDIFF represented the difference between the minimal and maximal values of X, Y and Z. The diagnostic subgroup trauma was excluded, because there was only one patient. The null-hypothesis of no between-group differences in within-subject and total variability was tested with an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The level of significance was set at 0.05. To minimize type I errors caused by multiple testing Scheffe's test was used to maintain an overall significance of 0.05. No significant difference between patients and control subjects could be found for variables XL, XR, YL, YR, ZR and ZL. Variables XMIN, YMIN, ZMIN, XMAX, YMAX, ZMAX, XDIFF, YDIFF and ZDIFF showed no significant differences. Scheffe's testing for the variables XL, XR, YL, YR, ZL and ZR, as well as the variables XMIN, YMIN, ZMIN, XMAX, YMAX, ZMAX, XDIFF YDIFF and ZDIFF showed no significant differences. The results of this study suggest no variability in Centric Relation position between TMD-patients and control subjects by means of the leaf gauge.
-
Reliability of a measuring-procedure to locate a muscle-determined Centric Relation position.
The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry, 2004Co-Authors: A. J. J. Zonnenberg, Jan Mulder, H.r. Sulkers, R. CabriAbstract:Although reproducibility of Centric Relation position, determined with an anterior deprogramming device, a leaf gauge, is widely accepted among clinicians, data confirming statistical evidence are lacking in the current literature. The objective of this study was to prove clinical reliability of a measuring-procedure to locate the Centric Relation position, determined with the leaf gauge. A sample of 15 subjects (6 men, 9 women, age 22 to 46), assessed with the Research Diagnostic Criteria to rule out any TMD-signs, was selected. Three observers each took three sequential interocclusal records with the leaf gauge, to mount a set of casts into the Centric Relation position in an articulator. Out of 15 subjects, 12 (5 men, 7 women) fitted criteria of precision--three out of three interocclusal records for each of the three observers--in a split-cast procedure. The applied statistical method is an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with two factors for 3 observers and 12 subjects. The variance components estimation procedure is MIVQUE (0). The a was set at 0.05. No significant difference between observers for the measured variables sagittally (XL, XR), transversally (YL, YR), and vertically (ZL, ZR) could be found. MIVQUE variance components estimates for observers is < 0, varies for subjects from 0.04 to 0.20 and varies for error from 0.12 to 0.25 mm. Reliability of a measuring-procedure to locate a muscle-determined Centric Relation position could be established satisfactory.
Jan Mulder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reproducibility of 2 methods to locate Centric Relation in healthy individuals and TMD patients.
The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry, 2012Co-Authors: A. J. J. Zonnenberg, Jan MulderAbstract:No conclusive evidence exists for any maxillomandibular Relationship as the preferable treatment position. Measurement reliability of 2 different methods to attempt to locate Centric Relation in control and TMD patients was assessed to determine if both methods lead to the same position. A group of 27 controls and 91 TMD patients were examined using the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD). Three patient groups were recruited: 27 patients with myofascial pain (MYO), 34 patients with disc displacement without reduction (ID), and 30 patients with osteoarthritis (OA). For each study participant Centric Relation was located with chinpoint guidance and a technique with a leaf gauge, for the controls once, for all TMD patients before and after stabilization splint treatment. The mixed model procedure revealed no significant differences between the methods, the patient groups and the time interval. However the patient groups at baseline and conclusion of treatment differed significantly from the controls. The percentage of patients (15.9%) having a coincident split-cast result for both methods was significantly smaller (P < 0.001) than the corresponding percentage (85.2%) of controls. After splint treatment, the percentage of coincident split-casts increased from 15.9% to 76.8%. Both methods are reproducible techniques to locate Centric Relation for control and TMD patients. However, the leaf gauge provides the clinician a different Centric Relation position in TMD patients than chinpoint guidance does.
-
Variability of Centric Relation position in TMD patients.
The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry, 2006Co-Authors: A. J. J. Zonnenberg, Jan MulderAbstract:Reproducibility of the Centric Relation position for patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is not documented in the current literature. It was the objective of this study to assess clinical variability of the Centric Relation position for TMD patients with a muscle-determined technique by means of an anterior deprogramming device, the leaf gauge. A sample of 60 patients with signs of TMD was selected, 8 men (Mean age 28,6, SD 5,2) and 52 women (Mean age 30,5, SD 10,1). All patients were examined with the Research Diagnostic Criteria, including pain on movement and/or function, mouth opening, joint sounds and palpation of masticatory muscles. All 60 patients were allocated to one of the following diagnostic subgroups: myofascial pain, disk displacement with reduction, disk displacement without reduction, osteoarthritis, trauma. Twelve control subjects were taken from a previous study. Three sequential Centric Relation records were taken; the first one was used to mount a set of casts to an articulator. Criteria of precision were formulated beforehand: 2 out of 3 Centric Relation records had to be identical in a split-cast procedure. Variables XL and XR represented mandibular displacement in the sagittal plane, variables YL and YR in the transversal plane, and ZL and ZR in the vertical plane, on the left and right condylar level respectively. Variables XMIN, YMIN and ZMIN represented the minimal sagittal, transversal and vertical displacement left or right respectively. Likewise, variables XMAX, YMAX and ZMAX represented the maximal sagittal, transversal and vertical displacement left or right. XDIFF, YDIFF and ZDIFF represented the difference between the minimal and maximal values of X, Y and Z. The diagnostic subgroup trauma was excluded, because there was only one patient. The null-hypothesis of no between-group differences in within-subject and total variability was tested with an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The level of significance was set at 0.05. To minimize type I errors caused by multiple testing Scheffe's test was used to maintain an overall significance of 0.05. No significant difference between patients and control subjects could be found for variables XL, XR, YL, YR, ZR and ZL. Variables XMIN, YMIN, ZMIN, XMAX, YMAX, ZMAX, XDIFF, YDIFF and ZDIFF showed no significant differences. Scheffe's testing for the variables XL, XR, YL, YR, ZL and ZR, as well as the variables XMIN, YMIN, ZMIN, XMAX, YMAX, ZMAX, XDIFF YDIFF and ZDIFF showed no significant differences. The results of this study suggest no variability in Centric Relation position between TMD-patients and control subjects by means of the leaf gauge.
-
Reliability of a measuring-procedure to locate a muscle-determined Centric Relation position.
The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry, 2004Co-Authors: A. J. J. Zonnenberg, Jan Mulder, H.r. Sulkers, R. CabriAbstract:Although reproducibility of Centric Relation position, determined with an anterior deprogramming device, a leaf gauge, is widely accepted among clinicians, data confirming statistical evidence are lacking in the current literature. The objective of this study was to prove clinical reliability of a measuring-procedure to locate the Centric Relation position, determined with the leaf gauge. A sample of 15 subjects (6 men, 9 women, age 22 to 46), assessed with the Research Diagnostic Criteria to rule out any TMD-signs, was selected. Three observers each took three sequential interocclusal records with the leaf gauge, to mount a set of casts into the Centric Relation position in an articulator. Out of 15 subjects, 12 (5 men, 7 women) fitted criteria of precision--three out of three interocclusal records for each of the three observers--in a split-cast procedure. The applied statistical method is an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with two factors for 3 observers and 12 subjects. The variance components estimation procedure is MIVQUE (0). The a was set at 0.05. No significant difference between observers for the measured variables sagittally (XL, XR), transversally (YL, YR), and vertically (ZL, ZR) could be found. MIVQUE variance components estimates for observers is < 0, varies for subjects from 0.04 to 0.20 and varies for error from 0.12 to 0.25 mm. Reliability of a measuring-procedure to locate a muscle-determined Centric Relation position could be established satisfactory.
R B Winstanley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An appraisal of the literature on Centric Relation. Part III.
Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2001Co-Authors: A Keshvad, R B WinstanleyAbstract:The literature directly and indirectly related to Centric Relation (CR) has been reviewed chronologically. More than 300 papers and quoted sections of books have been divided into three sections. The first two parts are related to CR. Studies in this group mainly compared, either the position of the mandibular condyle or the mandible itself in different CR recordings. Various tools were discussed for this purpose. The third part of the paper is about CR-Centric occlusion (CO) discrepancy. CR still remains one of the controversial issues in prosthodontics and orthodontics. Debates such as mounting casts on the articulator by reproducible records for orthodontic treatment planning and end results, and whether or not orthodontic treatment based on CO causes TMJ dysfunction, remain unsolved. The references are listed at the end of Part III.
-
An appraisal of the literature on Centric Relation. Part II.
Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2000Co-Authors: A Keshvad, R B WinstanleyAbstract:The literature directly and indirectly related to Centric Relation (CR) has been reviewed chronologically. More than 300 papers and quoted sections of books have been divided into three sections. The first two parts of the paper are related to CR. Studies in this group mainly compared either the position of the mandibular condyle or the mandible itself in different CR recordings. Various tools were discussed for this purpose. The third part deals with CR-Centric occlusion (CO) discrepancy. CR remains one of the controversial issues in prosthodontics and orthodontics. Debates relating to mounting casts on the articulator by reproducible records for orthodontic treatment planning and end results, and whether or not orthodontic treatment based on CO causes temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, remain unsolved. The references are listed at the end of Part III.
-
An appraisal of the literature on Centric Relation. Part I.
Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2000Co-Authors: Alireza Keshvad, R B WinstanleyAbstract:The literature directly and indirectly related to Centric Relation (CR) has been reviewed chronologically. More than 300 papers and quoted sections of books have been divided into three sections. The first two parts are related to CR. Studies in this group mainly compared either the position of the mandibular condyle or the mandible itself in different CR recordings. Various tools were discussed for this purpose. The third part of the paper is about CR-Centric occlusion (CO) discrepancy. CR still remains one of the controversial issues in prosthodontics and orthodontics. Debates such as mounting casts on the articulator by reproducible records for orthodontic treatment planning and end results, and whether or not orthodontic treatment based on CO causes temporomandibular joint dysfunction, remain unsolved. The references are listed at the end of Part III.
Henry A. Gremillion - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The reproducibility of Centric Relation: a clinical approach.
Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 1997Co-Authors: Gregory J. Tarantola, Irwin M. Becker, Henry A. GremillionAbstract:This study addresses the reproducibility of the Centric Relation, or CR, position. Using bimanual manipulation, several dentists were randomly assigned to one of five patients to clinically determine CR and record this position by using the same wax recording technique. These bite records, which were then analyzed by using the Denar Centri-Check marking system (Teledyne Water-Pik), were found to capture condylar positions with a maximum variation of 0.1 millimeter, as measured within the tolerances of the Denar Centri-Check.
Ala J Sutto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reliable and repeatable Centric Relation adjustment of the maxillary occlusal device
Journal of Prosthodontics, 2013Co-Authors: Jeffrey D Fleigel, Ala J SuttoAbstract:This technique article describes a quantifiable, repeatable, and reliable method for occlusal device adjustment in Centric Relation using a leaf gauge. In addition, specific suggestions for occlusal device design are provided to enhance patient comfort with the prosthesis in place.