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

Overview

Journal J Indian Prosthodont Soc

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Oct 20

PMID 37861609

Authors

Shruti S Potdukhe

Janani M Iyer

Jyoti B Nadgere

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cement-retained all-ceramic implant-supported crowns on zirconia abutment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Potdukhe S, Iyer J, Nadgere J J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024; 24(1):25-35.

PMID: 38263555 PMC: 10896314. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_524_23.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of accuracy between protrusive interocclusal record and horizontal condylar guidance angle recording methods in dentulous patients.

Potdukhe S, Iyer J, Nadgere J J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024; 24(1):3-14.

PMID: 38263553 PMC: 10896306. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_382_23.

References

Hauser W, Bernardy K, Arnold B, Offenbacher M, Schiltenwolf M . Efficacy of multicomponent treatment in fibromyalgia syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 2009; 61(2):216-24. DOI: 10.1002/art.24276. View

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(4):264-9, W64. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. View

Celar A, Tamaki K . Accuracy of recording horizontal condylar inclination and Bennett angle with the Cadiax compact. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29(11):1076-81. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00951.x. View

Methley A, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S . PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14:579. PMC: 4310146. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0. View

Li C, Teixeira H, Tanna N, Zheng Z, Chen S, Zou M . The Reliability of Two- and Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Measurements: A CBCT Study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(12). PMC: 8700671. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11122292. View

Dettori J, Norvell D, Chapman J . Seeing the Forest by Looking at the Trees: How to Interpret a Meta-Analysis Forest Plot. Global Spine J. 2021; 11(4):614-616. PMC: 8119923. DOI: 10.1177/21925682211003889. View

Bhawsar S, Marathe A, Ansari S . Evaluation of Hanau's formula in determination of lateral condylar guidance: A clinical research study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016; 15(4):326-30. PMC: 4762349. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.161566. View

Cooper C, Booth A, Varley-Campbell J, Britten N, Garside R . Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):85. PMC: 6092796. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3. View

Abduo J . Safety of increasing vertical dimension of occlusion: a systematic review. Quintessence Int. 2012; 43(5):369-80. View

10.

Page M, Shamseer L, Tricco A . Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev. 2018; 7(1):32. PMC: 5819709. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0699-4. View

11.

Peters M, Marnie C, Colquhoun H, Garritty C, Hempel S, Horsley T . Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):263. PMC: 8499488. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3. View

12.

Greenland S, Senn S, Rothman K, Carlin J, Poole C, Goodman S . Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016; 31(4):337-50. PMC: 4877414. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3. View

13.

Nalcaci R, Ozturk F, Sokucu O . A comparison of two-dimensional radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography in angular cephalometric measurements. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010; 39(2):100-6. PMC: 3520203. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/82724776. View

14.

Candelo E, McCalla M, Valderrama O, Avila-Castano K, Chelf C, Olomu O . Relationship Between Alcohol Intolerance and Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease (AERD): Systematic Review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023; 169(1):12-20. DOI: 10.1002/ohn.248. View

15.

Lo C, Mertz D, Loeb M . Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14:45. PMC: 4021422. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-45. View

16.

Moskalewicz A, Oremus M . No clear choice between Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 120:94-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.013. View

17.

Whiting P, Rutjes A, Westwood M, Mallett S, Deeks J, Reitsma J . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(8):529-36. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. View

18.

Godavarthi A, Sajjan M, Rama Raju A, Rajeshkumar P, Premalatha A, Chava N . Correlation of Condylar Guidance Determined by Panoramic Radiographs to One Determined by Conventional Methods. J Int Oral Health. 2015; 7(8):123-8. PMC: 4588777. View

19.

Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, Jia J, Wang J, Han G . Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in systematic review. PLoS One. 2013; 8(8):e71838. PMC: 3748039. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071838. View

20.

Gross M, Nemcovsky C, Friedlander L . Comparative study of condylar settings of three semiadjustable articulators. Int J Prosthodont. 1990; 3(2):135-41. View