Comparative Study Of Protrusive Record Accuracy With And Without George Gauge For Dentulous Cases

A. Mostafa, Noha H El-Shaheed
{"title":"Comparative Study Of Protrusive Record Accuracy With And Without George Gauge For Dentulous Cases","authors":"A. Mostafa, Noha H El-Shaheed","doi":"10.21608/mjd.2022.270256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the George gauge in protrusive records. Materials and Methods: This clinical trial includes a total of 12 dentulous subjects aged 20 to 40 years with no signs of muscular disease or temporomandibular joint disorders were chosen. For each patient, two different protrusive records were created, one with and one without the George gauge, using polyvinyl siloxane materials. The accuracy of these two protrusive records was evaluated by measuring the amount of midline shift in both records with a digital calliper. Then these Protrusive records were used to programme the articulator and determine the specific horizontal condylar angle (HCA) value, as well as panoramic radiographs to compare clinical and radiographic values. Paired sample t-test, and one-way ANOVA test was used for parametric data analysis. SPSS Ver.23 was used for statistical analysis. Results The findings revealed a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of the protrusive record when done conventionally versus with the aid of George Gauge, with George Gauge providing a more accurate record. The angle obtained via panoramic radiographs was steeper than the angle obtained clinically. Conclusions: The George gauge aids in the accurate and simple registration of protrusive records. The condylar guidance angles determined by radiographs were greater than those determined by clinical methods using protrusive records.","PeriodicalId":308616,"journal":{"name":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/mjd.2022.270256","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the George gauge in protrusive records. Materials and Methods: This clinical trial includes a total of 12 dentulous subjects aged 20 to 40 years with no signs of muscular disease or temporomandibular joint disorders were chosen. For each patient, two different protrusive records were created, one with and one without the George gauge, using polyvinyl siloxane materials. The accuracy of these two protrusive records was evaluated by measuring the amount of midline shift in both records with a digital calliper. Then these Protrusive records were used to programme the articulator and determine the specific horizontal condylar angle (HCA) value, as well as panoramic radiographs to compare clinical and radiographic values. Paired sample t-test, and one-way ANOVA test was used for parametric data analysis. SPSS Ver.23 was used for statistical analysis. Results The findings revealed a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of the protrusive record when done conventionally versus with the aid of George Gauge, with George Gauge providing a more accurate record. The angle obtained via panoramic radiographs was steeper than the angle obtained clinically. Conclusions: The George gauge aids in the accurate and simple registration of protrusive records. The condylar guidance angles determined by radiographs were greater than those determined by clinical methods using protrusive records.
有、无乔治测量仪在义齿病例中突出记录准确性的比较研究
目的:评价乔治尺在突出记录中的准确性。材料与方法:本临床试验选取年龄在20 ~ 40岁,无肌肉疾病和颞下颌关节疾病征象的全齿受试者12例。对于每位患者,使用聚氯乙烯硅氧烷材料制作了两种不同的突出记录,一种使用乔治计,另一种不使用乔治计。这两个突出的记录的准确性是通过测量两个记录的中线移位量与数字卡尺评估。然后利用这些突出记录对关节进行编程,确定特定的水平髁角(HCA)值,并通过全景x线片比较临床和x线片值。参数数据分析采用配对样本t检验和单因素方差分析。采用SPSS Ver.23进行统计分析。结果常规测量与George Gauge测量在突出记录准确性上有统计学上的显著差异,George Gauge提供了更准确的记录。通过全景x线片获得的角度比临床获得的角度更陡。结论:乔治测量仪有助于准确、简便地记录突出记录。x线片测定的髁突引导角大于临床方法测定的髁突引导角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信