A Comparative Evaluation of Sagittal Condylar Guidance Between Dentate and Edentulous Patients Using CBCT: An in Vivo Study

Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 2025 , Pages 27-34

Authors

Alan Abdulqader 1 ; Tanya Hama Faiq 1 ; Jwan Abdulaziz 1

1 Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq.

DOI logo 10.17656/sdj.10202

Keywords

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the sagittal condylar guidance (SCG) angle between dentate and edentulous patients, right and left sides, and males and females. At the same time, the study aimed to explore any statistically significant relation in values of the (SCG) angles between different age groups.

Methods: The study samples included 40 participants, 20 dentate patients (10 men and 10 women, aged from 20-49 years) were included. Similarly, 20 edentulous patients (10 men and 10 women, aged from 50-79 years) were taken on. (SCG) angles were measured for the right and left sides using (CBCT) with appropriate software. Independent samples t-test and ANOVA test were used to analyze the data.

Results: The difference in (SCG) values between dentate and edentulous patients was statistically significant at p < 0.05. In contrast, the recorded values of (SCG) were comparable between the right and left sides, between males and females, with no statistical differences, p > 0.05. Furthermore, potential statistically significant differences between the values of SCG  angles and different age groups in dentate and edentulous cases were not explored.

Conclusions: There was no significant variation in the values of the SCG angles between the right and left sides simultaneously between males and females. However, a significant difference was detected in the value of SCG angles between dentate and edentulous cases. In contrast, statistically significant differences were not depicted in the values of SCG angles between different age groups in dentate and edentulous samples.

References

  1. Kumari VV, Anehosur GV, Meshramkar R, Nadiger RK, Lekha K. An in vivo study to compare and correlate sagittal condylar guidance obtained by radiographic and extraoral gothic arch tracing method in edentulous patients. Eur J Prosthodont. 2016;4(1):12-6.
  2. Zamacona JM, Otaduy E, Aranda E. Study of the sagittal condylar path in edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(2):314-7.
  3. Prasad DK, Shah N, Hegde C. A clinicoradiographic analysis of sagittal condylar guidance determined by protrusive interocclusal registration and panoramic radiographic images in humans. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3(4):383-7.
  4. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. Ninth edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(5S):e1-105.
  5. Pelletier LB, Campbell SD. Comparison of condylar control settings using three methods: a bench study. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;66(2):193-200.
  6. Isaacson D. A clinical study of the condyle path. J Prosthet Dent. 1959;9(6):927-35.
  7. Aull AE. Condylar determinants of occlusal patterns: Part I. Statistical report on condylar path variations. J Prosthet Dent. 1965;15(5):826-49.
  8. Payne JA. Condylar determinants in a patient population: electronic panto-graph assessment. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24(2):157-63.
  9. Preti G, Scotti R, Bruscagin C, Carossa S. A clinical study of graphic registration of the condylar path inclination. J Prosthet Dent. 1982;48(4):461-6.
  10. Posselt U. Physiology of occlusion and rehabilitation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1968. pp 121-32.
  11. Mohl ND, Zarb GA, Carlsson GE, Rugh JD. A textbook of occlusion. Chicago: Quintessence; 1988. pp 139-40.
  12. Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Eckert SE, Fenton AH, Jacob RF, Mericske-Stern R. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients: complete dentures and implant-supported prostheses. 13th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2004. p 294.
  13. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2004. p 294.
  14. Curtis DA, Sorensen JA. Errors incurred in programming a fully adjustable articulator with a pantograph. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;55(4):427-9.
  15. Gilboa I, Cardash HS, Kaffe I, Gross MD. Condylar guidance: correlation between articular morphology and panoramic radiographic images in dry human skulls. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(6):477-82.
  16. Santos JD, Nelson J, Nummikoski PS. Geometric analysis of occlusal plane orientation using simulated ear-rod facebow transfer. J Prosthodont. 1996;5(3):172-81.
  17. Christensen LV, Slabbert JC. The concept of the sagittal condylar guidance: biological fact or fallacy. J Oral Rehabil. 1978;5(1):1-7.
  18. Rashid MO. Cone Beam Computerized Tomography in Dental Clinic: Where and When to Use? Sulaimani Dent J. 2017;4(special issue):25-30.
  19. Shreshta P, Jain V, Bhalla A, Pruthi G. A comparative study to measure the condylar guidance by the radiographic and clinical methods. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012;4(3):153-7.
  20. Dos Anjos Pontual ML, Freire JS, Barbosa JM, Frazão MA, dos Anjos Pontual A. Evaluation of bone changes in the temporomandibular joint using cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(1):24-9.
  21. El Gheriani AS, Winstanley RB. Graphic tracings of condylar paths and measurements of condylar angles. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;61(1):77-87.
  22. Mohammed DA. Anthropometric Dimensions of Nasopalatine Canal measured by Cone Beam Computed Tomography among Kurdish Population. Sulaimani Dent J. 2016;3(2):90-7.
  23. White SC, Pharaoh MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 8th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2019. pp 175-7.
  24. Langland OE, Langlais RP, Preece JW. Principles of dental imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002. p 202.
  25. Mawani D, Muddugangadhar BC, Das A, Mukhopadhyay A. Comparative evaluation of condylar inclination in dentulous subjects as determined by two radiographic methods: Orthopantomograph and cone-beam computed tomography-An in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2019;19(2):113-9.
  26. Acharya S, Pandey A, Sethi S, Meena MK. A comparative study of condylar guidance setting obtained from interocclusal records and panoramic radiographs in both dentulous and edentulous subjects. Dent J Adv Stud. 2015;3(II):085-90.
  27. Lei J, Liu MQ, Yap AU, Fu KY. Condylar subchondral formation of cortical bone in adolescents and young adults. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51(1):63-8.
  28. Sülün T, Cemgil T, Duc J-MP, Rammelsberg P, Jäger L, Gernet W. Morphology of the mandibular fossa and inclination of the articular eminence in patients with internal derangement and in symptom-free volunteers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2001;92(1):98-107.
  29. Lassmann Ł, Nowak Z, Orthlieb JD, Żółtowska A. Complicated Relationships between Anterior and Condylar Guidance and Their Clinical Implications-Comparison by Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Electronic Axiography-An Observational Cohort Cross-Sectional Study. Life (Basel). 2023;13(2):335.
  30. Das A, Muddugangadhar BC, Mawani DP, Mukhopadhyay A. Comparative evaluation of sagittal condylar guidance obtained from a clinical method and with cone beam computed tomography in dentate individuals. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(5):753-7.
  31. Hong SJ, Noh K. Setting the sagittal condylar inclination on a virtual articulator by using a facial and intraoral scan of the protrusive interocclusal position: A dental technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(3):392-5.
  32. Lepidi L, Galli M, Mastrangelo F, Venezia P, Joda T, Wang HL, Li J. Virtual Articulators and Virtual Mounting Procedures: Where Do We Stand? J Prosthodont. 2021;30(1):24-35.
  33. Lepidi L, Galli M, Mastrangelo F, Venezia P, Joda T, Wang HL, Li J. Virtual Articulators and Virtual Mounting Procedures: Where Do We Stand? J Prosthodont. 2021;30(1):24-35.
  34. Kumar RV, Gowda ME, Shashidhar MP. Clinicoradiographic comparison of sagittal condylar guidance angle determined by dynamic and radiographic methods. J Dent Def Sec. 2022;16(2):123-9.
  35. Ailsinghani SB, Vikhe D, Palekar U, Saraf V, Hajira N, Madanshetty P. Comparison Of Sagittal Condylar Angle Obtained Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography And Interocclusal Record Materials-An In Vivo Study.(2022). Int J Life Sci Pharma Res;12(1):L72-82.
  36. Das R, Giri TK, Kanrar B, Mukherjee S. A comparative evaluation of sagittal condylar guidance obtained by the protrusive interocclusal record and panoramic radiographic tracing in both dentulous and edentulous patients. J Oral Res Rev. 2023;15(1):21-7.
  37. Dragus AC, Mihai A, Tanase G, Burlibasa M, Cristache CM. Intra-individual Left–Right Side Differences of Sagittal Condylar Inclination (SCI) in Different Skeletal Classes. Healthcare. 2023;11(9):1341.
  38. Kwon OK, Yang SW, Kim JH. Correlation between sagittal condylar guidance angles obtained using radiographic and protrusive occlusal record methods. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9(4):302-7.
  39. Sirana P, Kumar N, Malhotra A, Singhal N, Chaudhary N. Comparative Analysis of Sagittal Condylar Guidance Recorded by Intraoral Gothic Arch Tracing and Panoramic Radiograph in Completely Edentulous Patients. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(11):13015.
  40. Alshali RZ, Yar R, Barclay C, Satterthwaite JD. Sagittal condylar angle and gender differences. J Prosthodont. 2013;22(7):561-5.
  41. Sreelal T, Janardanan K, Nair AS, Nair AS. Age changes in horizontal condylar angle: A clinical and cephalometric study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(2):108-12.
  42. Mathew AL, Sholapurkar AA, Pai KM. Condylar Changes and Its Association with Age, TMD, and Dentition Status: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Dent. 2011;2011(2):1-7.
Statistics
  • Article view812
  • Downloads19
  • Published at1 April 2025

  • RIS
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • APA (7th edition)
  • MLA (9th edition)
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • Vancouver