Proposing a revised Hanau's formula for determining lateral condylar guidance: A comparative study

Q1 Medicine

Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research Pub Date : 2025-08-16 DOI:10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.08.014

Jayant N. Palaskar , Amit D. Hindocha , Prashant D. Jadhav , Pooja P. Hasabnis

{"title":"Proposing a revised Hanau's formula for determining lateral condylar guidance: A comparative study","authors":"Jayant N. Palaskar , Amit D. Hindocha , Prashant D. Jadhav , Pooja P. Hasabnis","doi":"10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.08.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Inaccurate lateral condylar guidance (LCG) recordings lead to occlusal interferences, increasing patient discomfort and chair-side time. This study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of LCG calculated using Hanau's formula and right and left lateral records. It also seeks to provide a new formula for calculating LCG.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>An in-vivo, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted with hundred and sixty readings from twenty patients, divided into four groups (forty readings per group): Group A (control)- 2 frontal cephalograms (1st-maximum intercuspation and 2nd-5 mm lateral excursion), Group B- lateral records, Group C- Hanau's formula, and Group D-the new formula. Horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) values from protrusive records were used in Hanau's formula to calculate LCG. LCG values were also obtained from lateral records, frontal cephalograms (taken with lateral jigs), and the new formula. These values were tabulated and statistically evaluated using One-way ANOVA for group comparisons, Tukey's post hoc test for pairwise comparisons, and Shapiro-Wilk test for data normality.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The mean LCG values for Group B were 32.3 (right) and 30.8 (left), and for Group D were 31.15 (right) and 31.75 (left), comparable to Group A of 33.17 (right) and 33.69 (left). The mean LCG values for Groups C were 15.33 (right) and 15.41 (left) and were found to be statistically significant with Group A.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>LCG values obtained using the new proposed formula are closer to control values, making it a viable alternative to interocclusal records and more accurate than Hanau's formula.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16609,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","volume":"15 6","pages":"Pages 1291-1296"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212426825001939","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Inaccurate lateral condylar guidance (LCG) recordings lead to occlusal interferences, increasing patient discomfort and chair-side time. This study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of LCG calculated using Hanau's formula and right and left lateral records. It also seeks to provide a new formula for calculating LCG.

Materials and methods

An in-vivo, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted with hundred and sixty readings from twenty patients, divided into four groups (forty readings per group): Group A (control)- 2 frontal cephalograms (1st-maximum intercuspation and 2nd-5 mm lateral excursion), Group B- lateral records, Group C- Hanau's formula, and Group D-the new formula. Horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) values from protrusive records were used in Hanau's formula to calculate LCG. LCG values were also obtained from lateral records, frontal cephalograms (taken with lateral jigs), and the new formula. These values were tabulated and statistically evaluated using One-way ANOVA for group comparisons, Tukey's post hoc test for pairwise comparisons, and Shapiro-Wilk test for data normality.

Results

The mean LCG values for Group B were 32.3 (right) and 30.8 (left), and for Group D were 31.15 (right) and 31.75 (left), comparable to Group A of 33.17 (right) and 33.69 (left). The mean LCG values for Groups C were 15.33 (right) and 15.41 (left) and were found to be statistically significant with Group A.

Conclusion

LCG values obtained using the new proposed formula are closer to control values, making it a viable alternative to interocclusal records and more accurate than Hanau's formula.

查看原文本刊更多论文

提出一种修正的确定外侧髁导向的Hanau公式：一项比较研究

背景：不准确的外侧髁导引（LCG）记录会导致咬合干扰，增加患者不适和椅侧时间。本研究旨在评估和比较使用Hanau公式计算LCG和左右外侧记录的准确性。它还试图提供一个计算LCG的新公式。材料和方法对20例患者进行了体内观察性横断面研究，共采集了160个读数，分为4组（每组40个读数）：A组（对照组）- 2张额部脑电图（第1次最大间歇和第2次-5毫米侧移），B组-侧移记录，C组- Hanau公式，d组-新公式。在Hanau公式中使用突出记录的水平髁导引（HCG）值计算LCG。LCG值也从侧位记录、额位脑电图（采用侧位摄片）和新公式中获得。将这些值制成表格，并使用单因素方差分析进行分组比较，使用Tukey事后检验进行两两比较，使用Shapiro-Wilk检验进行数据正态性评估。结果B组LCG平均值分别为32.3（右）和30.8（左），D组LCG平均值分别为31.15（右）和31.75（左），与A组的33.17（右）和33.69（左）相当。C组LCG均值为15.33（右），a组LCG均值为15.41（左），与a组LCG均值差异有统计学意义。结论采用新公式所得LCG值更接近对照组，可作为牙合记录的替代方法，且比Hanau公式更准确。

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

Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

133

审稿时长

167 days

期刊介绍： Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research (JOBCR)is the official journal of the Craniofacial Research Foundation (CRF). The journal aims to provide a common platform for both clinical and translational research and to promote interdisciplinary sciences in craniofacial region. JOBCR publishes content that includes diseases, injuries and defects in the head, neck, face, jaws and the hard and soft tissues of the mouth and jaws and face region; diagnosis and medical management of diseases specific to the orofacial tissues and of oral manifestations of systemic diseases; studies on identifying populations at risk of oral disease or in need of specific care, and comparing regional, environmental, social, and access similarities and differences in dental care between populations; diseases of the mouth and related structures like salivary glands, temporomandibular joints, facial muscles and perioral skin; biomedical engineering, tissue engineering and stem cells. The journal publishes reviews, commentaries, peer-reviewed original research articles, short communication, and case reports.