ReviewJournal of dental sciences2026
Evaluation of condylar position displacement using various centric relation recording techniques based on maximum intercuspation position: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of dental sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Restoring tooth defects is a key clinical task for dentists, aimed at either maintaining or reconstructing a functional occlusal dentition. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing centric relation (CR) and maximum intercuspal position (MIP) condylar positions obtained using various CR techniques, and to verify the reproducibility of these methods. Materials and methods: The PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published before January 2026. The single-arm meta-analysis used a random-effects model to calculate the overall effect size. Results: This study included 12 articles published between 1994 and 2024. Five different types of CR recording techniques were analyzed. Most techniques showed slight differences in CR and MIP with moderate to high heterogeneity. The chin-point guidance technique demonstrated a significant difference in the Y-axis (SMD = 1.17, Conclusion: While the various methods for obtaining CR records in this study have their own advantages and disadvantages, and the CR positions obtained differed among the techniques, they all demonstrated a certain degree of reproducibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.