2010 RWISO Journal - Roth Williams International Society of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

illary cast in the vertical dimension, with a mean of 2.19 mm for the maxillary right first molar, 2.45 mm for the maxillary left first molar, and 1.90 mm for the maxillary right central incisor. 2. Statistically significant differences (p < .001) were found between the true hinge face-bow mounted maxillary cast and the estimated earpiece face-bow hinge mounted maxillary cast in the A-P direction, with a mean difference of 3.82 mm between the maxillary right first molars, 3.10 mm between the maxillary left first molars, and 3.05 mm between the maxillary right central incisors. 3. Statistically significant differences (p < .001) were found between the true hinge face-bow mounted maxillary cast and the estimated earpiece face-bow hinge mounted maxillary cast in the transverse dimension, with a 2.23-mm difference between the maxillary right first molars and a 2.60-mm difference between the maxillary left first molars. 4. This study found that there is a significant difference between the arbitrary earpiece face-bow hinge axis and the true hinge face-bow hinge aixs. Thus, when an arbitray earpiece face-bow hinge axis transfer is used, the maxillarymandibular complex is placed in an incorrect position in the articulator. The end result is a lack of functional harmony. ■ References 1. McCollum BB. The mandibular hinge axis and a method of locating it. J Prosthet Dent. 1960;(10): 430-435. 2. Okeson JP. Functional Anatomy and Biomechanics of the Masticatory System: Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion. 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1998: 3-38. 3. Roth RH. Functional occlusion for the orthodontist. J Clin Orthod. 1981;(15):32-51. 4.Posselt, U. Terminal hinge movement of the mandible. J Prosthet Dent. 1957;(7): 787-796. 5. Glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent. 1987; (58): 721. 6. Gordon SR, Stoffer WM, Connor SA. Location of the terminal hinge axis and its effect on the second molar cusp position. 1984;(52): 99- 105. 7. Starcke EN. The history of articulators: from face-bows to the gnathograph, a brief history of early devices developed for recording condylar movement, Part II. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;(11): 53-62. 8. Winstanley RB. The hinge-axis: a review of the literature. J Oral Rehab. 1985;(12): 135-139. 9. Klar NA, Kulbersh R, Freeland TD, Kaczynski R. Maximum tntercuspation- centric relation disharmony in 200 consecutively finished cases in a gnathologically oriented practice. Semin in Orthod. 2003;(9): 109-116. 54 Freeland et al | Comparison of Maxillary Cast Positions 10. Trapozzano VR, Lazzari JB. The physiology of the terminal rotational position of the condyles in the temporomandibular joint. J Prosthet Dent. 1967;(17): 122-133. 11. Trapozzano VR, Lazzari JB. A study of hinge axis determination. J Prosthet Dent. 1961;(11): 858-863. 12. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A, Serrao G, Tartaglia G. Open-close movements in the human temporomandibular joint: does a pure rotation around the intercondylar hinge axis exist? J Oral Rehab. 1996;(23): 401-408. 13. Hellsing G, Hellsing E, Eliasson S. The hinge axis Concept: a radiographic study of its relevance. J Prosthet Dent. 1995; (73): 60-64. 14. Bowley JF, Michaels GC, Lai TW, Lin PP. Reliability of a face-bow transfer procedure. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;(67): 491-498. 15. Bowley JF, Pierce CJ. Reliability and validity of a transverse horizontal axis location instrument. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;(64): 646-650. 16. Strohaver, RA. A comparison of articulator mountings made with centric relation and myocentric position records. J. Prosthet Dent. 1972;(28): 379-390. 17. Aull AE. A study of the transverse axis. J. Prosthet Dent. 1963;(13): 469-479. 18. Borgh O, Posselt U. Hinge axis registration: experiments on the articulator. J Prosthet Dent. 1958;(8): 35-40. 19. Beard CC, Clayton JA. Studies on the validity of the terminal hinge axis. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;(46): 185-191. 20. Abdal-Hadi L. The hinge axis: evaluation of current arbitrary determination methods and a proposal for a new recording method. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;(62): 463-467. 21. Razek MKA. Clinical evaluation of methods used in locating the mandibular hinge axis. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;(46): 369-373. 22. Choi DG, Bowley JF, Marx DB, Lee S. Reliability of an ear-bow arbitrary face-bow transfer instrument. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;(82): 150-156. 23. Nagy WW, Smithy TJ, Wirth CG. Accuracy of a predetermined transverse horizontal mandibular axis point. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;(87): 387-393. 24. Piehslinger E. Reproducibility of the condylar reference position. J Orofac Pain. 1993;(7): 68-75. 25. Proschel PA, Nat R, Maul T, Morneburg T. Predicted incidence of excursive occlusal errors in common modes of articulator adjustment. J. Prosthet Dent. 2000;(13): 303-310. 26. Schallhorn RG. A study of the arbitrary center and the kinematic center of rotation for face-bow mountings. J Prosthet Dent. 1957;(7): 162-169. 27. Wood DP, Korne PH. Estimated and true hinge axis: a comparison of condylar displacements. Angle Orthod. 1992;(62): 167-175.
28. Goska JR, Christensen LV. Comparison of cast positions by using four face-bows. J Prosthet Dent. 1988;(59): 42-44. 29. Simpson, JW, Hesby RA, Pfeifer DL, Pelleu GB. Arbitrary mandibular hinge axis locations. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;(51):819-823 30. Lauritzen AG, Bodner GH. Variations in location of arbitrary and true hinge axis points. J Prosthet Dent. 1961;(11): 224-229. 31. Palik JF, Nelson DR, White JT. Accuracy of an earpiece face-bow. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;(53): 800-804. 32. Schulte JK, Rooney DJ, Erdman AG. The hinge axis transfer procedure: a three-dimensional error analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;(51): 247-251. 33. Morneburg TR, Proschel PA. Predicted incidence of occlusal errors in centric closing around arbitrary axes. Int J Prosthod. 2002;(15): 358-364. 34. Ricketts, RM, Perspectives in the Clinical Application of Cephalometrics. Angle Orthod. 1981;(51): 115-150. 35. Weinberg LA. An evaluation of the face-bow mounting. J Prosthet Dent. 1961;(11): 32-42. 36. Adrien P., Schouver J., Methods for minimizing the errors in mandibular model mounting on an articulator. J Oral Rehab. 1997;(24):929-935. 37. Brotman DN. Hinge axes, part I: the transverse hinge axis. J Prosthet Dent. 1960;(10): 436-440. 38. Preston JD. A reassessment of the mandibular transverse horizontal axis theory. J Prosthet Dent. 1979; 41: 605-613. 39. Teteruck WR. Lundeen HC. The accuracy of an ear face-bow. J Prosthet Dent. 1966;(16):1039-1046. 40. Walker PM. Discrepancies between arbitrary and true hinge axes. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;(43): 279-285. 41. Zuckerman GR. The geometry of the arbitrary hinge axis as it relates to the occlusion. J Prosthet Dent. 1982;(48): 725-733. 42. Collett Henry A. The movements of the temporomandibular joint and their relation to the problems of occlusion. J Prosthet Dent. 1955;(5): 486-496. 43. Brotman DN. Hinge Axes, ,part II: geometric significance of the transverse axis. J Prosthet Dent. 1960;(10): 631-636. 44. Fox SS. The significance of errors in hinge axis location. J Am Dent Assoc. 1967;(74):1262-1272. 45. Williamson EH, Evans DL, Barton WA, Williams BH. The effect of bite plane use of terminal hinge axis location. Angle Orthod. 1977;(47): 25-33. RWISO Journal | September 2010 55
Page 1 and 2:
Contents Volume 2, No. 1, September
Page 3 and 4: Letter from the President Samuel B.
Page 5 and 6: News from the Roth Williams Teachin
Page 7 and 8: In addition, three 8-hour courses w
Page 9 and 10: Drs. Edson Illipronti and Solange F
Page 11 and 12: The Transverse Dimension: Diagnosis
Page 13 and 14: Figure 4 Patient with gingival rece
Page 15 and 16: idge determines the width of the ma
Page 17 and 18: Figure 16 MPV of a cone-beam CT sca
Page 19 and 20: 8. Vanarsdall RL. Transverse dimens
Page 21 and 22: Hinge Axis: The Need for Accuracy i
Page 23 and 24: to the flag table (Figure 25). The
Page 25 and 26: The Axi-Path is designed so that th
Page 27 and 28: Figure 43 Nasion relator moves tran
Page 29 and 30: The distance between the preauricul
Page 31 and 32: Figure 63 Flag table. Figure 64 Fla
Page 33 and 34: Figure 72 Figure 73 Supposition: Th
Page 35 and 36: Figure 83 The distance between the
Page 37 and 38: Condylar Resorption, Matrix Metallo
Page 39 and 40: Figure 4-c The extracellular activi
Page 41 and 42: shows promise in curbing the bone l
Page 43 and 44: 29. Zardeneta G, Milam SB, Lee T, S
Page 45 and 46: Comparison of Maxillary Cast Positi
Page 47 and 48: points. They found that the mean di
Page 49 and 50: Figure 2-a, b True-hinge facebow. F
Page 51 and 52: to adjust for experimentwide error
Page 53: pending upon the direction in which
Page 57 and 58: The Effect of Tooth Wear on Postort
Page 59 and 60: Figure 4 Slight attrition occurred
Page 61 and 62: improved, with retraction of the up
Page 63 and 64: Figure 9-e Left lateral intraoral p
Page 65 and 66: All available intraoral photographs
Page 67 and 68: Figure 21 Mandibular movement after
Page 69 and 70: Physiologic Treatment Goals in Orth
Page 71 and 72: REFERENCES 1. Dawson PE. The Concep
Page 73 and 74: 70. McNamara JA Jr. The independent
Page 75 and 76: Effect of Gnathologic Positioner We
Page 77 and 78: sure was first checked in the mount
Page 79 and 80: For these analyses, the desired sig
Page 81 and 82: the .05 level of significance in th
Page 83 and 84: RWISO Journal | September 2010 83
show all

2010 RWISO Journal - Roth Williams International Society of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?