A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Accuracy Between Protrusive Interocclusal Record and Horizontal Condylar Guidance Angle Recording Methods in Dentulous Patients

Overview

Journal J Indian Prosthodont Soc

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Jan 24

PMID 38263553

Authors

Shruti S Potdukhe

Janani M Iyer

Jyoti B Nadgere

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of different methods used for measuring horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angle in comparison with protrusive interocclusal record (IOR) for dentulous patients.

Settings And Design: The design involves systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines.

Materials And Methods: An electronic search was carried out by two reviewers in the Google Scholar search engine and the EBSCO host, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases for quasi-experimental studies, in vivo studies, and cross-sectional studies published from January 2005 to February 2023 determining the HCG angle in dentulous patients.

Statistical Analysis Used: Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the quantitative data.

Results: A total of 577 articles were identified, 29 analytical cross-sectional studies that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included for qualitative synthesis and 26 studies were included for meta-analysis. A statistically significant difference was observed for the right and left HCG angles obtained by the panoramic radiograph method and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) method and for the right side HCG angle obtained by cephalogram method showing higher values than the protrusive IOR method. No statistically significant difference was observed for the left side HCG angle obtained by the cephalogram method and both the right and left side HCG angles obtained by the intraoral tracer method.

Conclusions: The panoramic radiograph, cephalogram, and CBCT obtained higher HCG angles in dentulous patients than the protrusive IOR method.

References

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. PMC: 3439625. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.3.153. View

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

Potdukhe S, Iyer J, Nadgere J . 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. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2023; 23(4):322-334. PMC: 10705011. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_216_23. View

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

Farman A, Scarfe W . Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(2):257-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.021. View

Praveena K, Ajay R, Devaki V, Balu K, Preethisuganya S, Menaga V . A Comparative Evaluation of Lateral Condylar Guidance by Clinical and Radiographic Methods - Hanau's Formula Revisited. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021; 13(Suppl 1):S537-S541. PMC: 8375954. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_640_20. View

Kaur S, Datta K . An study to evaluate the accuracy of orthopantomograph as an aid to determine condylar guidance. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018; 18(1):35-41. PMC: 5799967. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_243_17. View

Potdukhe S, Iyer J, Nadgere J . Evaluation of implant stability and increase in bone height in indirect sinus lift done with the osseodensification and osteotome technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2023; . DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.021. View

Terrin N, Schmid C, Lau J . In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(9):894-901. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.006. View

10.

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

11.

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

12.

Keerthana S, Mohammed H, Hariprasad A, Anand M, Ayesha S . Comparative evaluation of condylar guidance obtained by three different interocclusal recording materials in a semi-adjustable articulator and digital panoramic radiographic images in dentate patients: An study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021; 21(4):397-404. PMC: 8617454. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_239_21. View

13.

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

14.

Van Sickels J, Bianco Jr H, Pifer R . Transcranial radiographs in the evaluation of craniomandibular (TMJ) disorders. J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 49(2):244-9. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90510-3. 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.

Dettori J, Norvell D, Chapman J . Fixed-Effect vs Random-Effects Models for Meta-Analysis: 3 Points to Consider. Global Spine J. 2022; 12(7):1624-1626. PMC: 9393987. DOI: 10.1177/21925682221110527. View