Premium
Canine tooth guidance and temporomandibular joint sounds in non‐patients and patients
Author(s) -
DONEGAN S.J.,
CHRISTENSEN L.V.,
McKAY D.C.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1996.tb00837.x
Subject(s) - temporomandibular joint , medicine , occlusion , articulation (sociology) , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , canine tooth , dentistry , orthodontics , dental occlusion , biology , botany , politics , political science , law , genus
summary In 46 non‐patients and 46 patients, the authors examined the presence (+) and absence (‐) of canine tooth guidance (CG), i.e. dynamic dental articulation events in contrast to static dental occlusion events. During a right and a left laterotrusion of the mandible, the number of simple, mutually exclusive and exhaustive tooth guidance events (possibilities) was four. In addition, the authors examined the associations between temporomandibular joint (TMJ) sounds and canine guidance events. In non‐patients, CG+ was relatively infrequent (30%), and CG‐ was relatively frequent (70%). In patients, CG+ was relatively infrequent (22%), and CG‐ was relatively frequent (78%). In both non‐patients and patients, bilateral CG+ was rather infrequent (15%). In both nonpatients and patients with the presence of TMJ sounds, CG+ was relatively infrequent (38%) while CG‐ was relatively frequent (61%). In non‐patients as well as patients, no evidence was found that distal CG+ (putative lateral retrusive guidance) was associated with ipsilateral TMJ sounds (relative risk = 0%), nor that the association between mesial CG+ (putative lateral protrusive guidance) and ipsilateral TMJ sounds was beyond that of mere chance (relative risk = 50%).