Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37861609›Full record

SynthesisJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

Evaluation of accuracy between extraoral Gothic arch tracing and various other methods assessing horizontal condylar guidance angle in completely edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shruti S Potdukhe, Janani M Iyer, Jyoti B Nadgere

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shruti S PotdukheDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, MGM Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Janani M IyerDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, MGM Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Jyoti B NadgereDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, MGM Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the accuracy of different methods of measuring horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angle in comparison with extraoral Gothic arch tracing for completely edentulous patients. Settings and Design: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Materials and Methods: Two reviewers searched the EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases and the Google Scholar search engine for in vivo studies, randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and quasi-experimental studies published from January 2005 to December 2022 on various other methods of determining HCG angle in completely edentulous patients compared with extraoral Gothic arch tracing method. Statistical Analysis Used: Meta-analysis was conducted from the reported quantitative data. Results: A total of 513 articles were obtained from different electronic databases, of which 22 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 20 studies were included for meta-analysis. For the right side, a statistically significant difference was observed for panoramic radiograph (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 5.08 [2.17, 7]) and cephalogram (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 10.65 [8.81, 12.49]), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) (P = 0.41, pooled mean difference = 4.39 [-6.10, 14.87]) and protrusive interocclusal wax record (P = 0.92, pooled mean difference = -0.45 [-9.62, 8.72]) as compared with extraoral Gothic arch tracing method. For the left side, a statistically significant difference was observed for panoramic radiograph (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 5.07 [1.95, 8.18]) and cephalogram (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 10.24 [8.65, 11.83]), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed for CBCT (P = 0.31, pooled mean difference = 4.05 [-3.74, 11.84]) and protrusive interocclusal wax record (P = 0.72, pooled mean difference = -1.21 [-7.86, 5.43]) as compared with extraoral Gothic arch tracing method. Conclusion: The cephalogram and panoramic radiograph obtained higher HCG angles in completely edentulous patients than extraoral Gothic arch tracing.

Indexed as

Mouth, EdentulousCone-Beam Computed TomographyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansJaw Relation RecordRadiography, PanoramicAccuracyclinicalcondylar guidanceedentulousmethodradiograph

Identifiers

PMID37861609
PMCPMC10705011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.