Mandibular Centricity: Centric Relation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mandibular centricity: Centric relation Curtis M. Becker, DDS, MSD, a David A. Kaiser, DDS, MSD, b and Conrad Schwalm, DDS, MSD c University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colo.; and University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas Centric relation can be a confusing term because it continues to evolve in meaning. This article pre- sents a discussion of the historical aspects of centric relation. Guidelines to decide when to use ceu- tric relation in clinical dentistry are included. (J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:158-60.) Nearly all concepts of dental occlusion have sure on the chin." Mandibular manipulation increased embraced the practice of mandibular centricity, with in popularity with more interest in gnathologic philos- the exception of cranial orthopedics 1-3 (also called oral ophy. Mandibular manipulation gained in acceptance orthopedics). Early writers loosely referred to and authors began to warn of strain to condyles. In mandibular centricity as centric relation (CR), but they 1951 Robinson 11 stated that the mandible "can be rarely defined this jaw position adequately. In 1929, retruded beyond what we should consider centric into Hanau 4 defined centric relation as the position of the a strained retruded position." mandible in which the "condylar heads are resting The debate to accurately define the "centric jaw rela- upon the menisci in the sockets of the glenoid fossae, tion" escalated, and new terms began to appear in the regardless of the opening of the jaws." He also stated literature. Terms such as posterior border closure, relaxed that this relation is "either strained or unstrained." closure, bracing position, hinge position, ligamentous Hanau 4 preferred the unstrained centric relation associ- position, retruded contact position, and terminal hinge ated with an acceptable opening for a reference "jaw position merely added confusion. The various disci- relation. "4 In 1934, Niswonger 5 described CR as a plines within dentistry could not agree on a definition position where the patient can "clench the back teeth." of centric relation. The periodontal textbook by Gold- Schuyler6 defined the "centromaxillomandibular" posi- man and Cohen 12 defined centric relation as the most tion or centric position as "upper lingual cusps are rest- posterior relation of the mandible to the maxilla from ing in the central fossae of the opposing lower bicus- which "lateral movements can be made." Glickman 13 pids and molars." stated that centric relation was "the most retruded In 1946, Thompson 7 acknowledged the lack of position to which the mandible can be carried by the knowledge that was the basis of clinical procedures and patient's musculature." declared that "some believe that, in centric relation, the Graber 14 thought that centric relation was an condyles are in the most retruded position in the los- "unstrained, neutral position of the mandible" and "is sac, while others maintain they are not." The pioneers deviating neither to the right nor to the left and is nei- in prosthodontics rarely advocated manual manipula- ther protruded nor retruded." Boncher 15 stated "cen- tion of the mandible to achieve centric jaw registration. tric relation is the most posterior relation of the In 1923 Needles,8 used an intraoral arrow point trac- mandible to the maxillae at the established vertical rela- ing in which "the patient retruded the mandible to its tion." Schluger et all6 declared that centric relation was fullest extent." Schuyler9 advised the use of wax inter- "the position assumed by the mandible relative to the occlusal records and "the patient may be requested to maxilla when the condyles are in their most rearmost place the tip of the tongue far back on the palate to and midmost position in the glenoid fossae." This hold it there while closing. It is quite impossible for definition is extremely close to the gnathologic RUM one to protrude the mandible when this position of the definition purposed by McCollum and Stuart, 17 in tongue is retained." Meyer, 1° who used the functional- which the condyles are in a "Rearmost, Uppermost, ly generated path technique, did not attempt to manip- and Midmost" (RUM) position in the glenoid fossae. ulate the mandible, other than to instruct the patient In an effort to standardize the definitions of com- occasionally in "getting started by exerting a little pres- monly used terms in dentistry, The Academy of Prosthodontics (formerly The Academy of Denture Prosthetics) publishes a Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms. aAssociate Clinical Professor, Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, This glossary is revised periodically with 7 editions School of Dentistry, University of Colorado Health Sciences Cen- since it was first published in 1956. In every update, ter. bAssociate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, University of the definition of centric relation has been modified. Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Avant 18 declared the "seven definitions of centric rela- cprivate Practice, Rockville, Md. tion" that appeared in the 2nd edition (1960), as 158 THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY VOLUME 83 NUMBER 2 BECKER, KAISER, AND SCHWALM THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY "regrettable" and argued that centric relation is a bone- 3. Use MIP when there are 3 to 6 units of anterior to-bone (mandible-to-maxilla) relation, whereas cen- FPDs or RPDs. tric occlusion (MIP) is a tooth-to-tooth (mandibular 4. Adjust the occlusion of the remaining posterior teeth to maxillary teeth) relation. Schweitzer 19 lament- teeth to CR and build occlusion to CR if only 2 to 3 ed, "with almost 40 definitions of centric, it would bc posterior teeth remain in contact after preparation of presumptuous on my part to offer another." the abutments. Schluger et al ~6 admitted that the word centric may 5. Use CR when there are no posterior occlusal con- be the most "controversial term in dentistry," not only tacts remaining at the desired vertical dimension of from a semantic point of view but also from a concep- occlusion. tual point of view. They admitted that these serious dis- If a clinical decision is made to place the patient in parities in concept "may never be resolved. ''16 The an occlusal scheme based on centric relation for options most recent edition of The Glossary of Prosthodontic 1 to 3, then occlusal adjustment, based on principles on Terms (7th ed, 1999) defined centric relation as "the biologic occlusion, 22 should be accomplished before maxillomandibular relationship in which the condyles fabricating a prosthesis. articulate with the thinnest avascular portion of their The principles of biologic occlusion (and occlusal respective disks with the complex in the anterior-supe- adjustment) are as follows: rior position against the shapes of the articular emi- 1. No interference bewveen CR and MIP. nences. "20 The authors of the seventh edition also list- 2. No balancing contacts in eccentric jaw move- ed 7 other acceptable definitions of centric relation and ments. quoted several personal communications f?om respect- 3. Cusp-to-fossa occlusal scheme. ed members of the dental profession including Drs 4. A minimum of one contact per tooth, but multi- Ramst]ord, Ash, Lang, and Kelsey. The authors of the ple contacts per tooth are desirable. 5th edition (1987) of The Glossag~ of Prosthodontic 5. Canine rise or group function in lateral mandibu- Terms stated, "This term (CR) is in transition to obso- lar movement. lescence. ''21 Most agreed that the more attempts to 6. No posterior contacts with protrusive jaw move- define this critical concept of clinical dentistry, the ments. more confusing it became, 7. No cross-tooth balancing contacts. The current definition of CR is considerably differ- 8. Eliminate all frenitus, if possible. ent from definitions used by Hanau, Niswonger, It is unreasonable to demand that the condyles Schuyler, and others. These clinical dentists recorded remain in their hinge position for long periods when centric relation quite differently than today, but the teeth are in a maxillary intercuspal position. It is not concept of mandibular centricity remained constant, unreasonable to ensure that there are no cuspal inter- even though the definition and techniques have ferences between CR position and the MIP and that evolved and will probably be continuously modified. nonworldng contacts are eliminated. Furthermore, Schweitzer 19 observed that most experi- SUMMARY enced dentists have been able to locate centtic relation for the average patient they treat. Experienced dentists This article presents a brief discussion of the evolu- may not be able to give a precise definition of this con- tion of dentistry to define the term centric relation. troversial position, but they are able to record it. 19 Guidelines to determine when to use centric relation in clinical restorative dentistry were also presented. CLINICAL IMPORTANCE OF CENTRIC RELATION REFERENCES Only a sparse number of patients function naturally in 1. Gelb H. The temporomandibular joint syndrome: patient communication centric relation occlusion; but centric relation is an and motivation. Dent Clin North Am 1970;14:287-307. invaluable position in restorative dentistry. The question 2. Gelb H. Evaluation of static centric relation in the temporomandibu[ar joint dysfunction syndrome. Dent Clin North Am 1975;19:519-30. for a dentist is when is the occlusal scheme restored in 3. Gelb H. Clinical management of head, neck and TMD pain and dysfunc- CR and when in the habitual maximal intercuspal posi- tion. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1977. p. 32-8. tion (MIP) of the patient? The answer is not absolute 4. Hanau RH. Occlusal changes in centric relation. J Am Dent Assoc 1929;16:1903-15. because each patient possesses a different set of clinical 5. Niswonger MF. The rest position of the mandible and centric relation. J circumstances that influence this decision. Am Dent Assoc 1934;21:1572-82. Some guidelines for this clinical decision are as 6.