Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Temporomandibular Joint: Case Report

Zampelli, Michael A.; Salkin, Leslie M.; Vandersall, David C.; Denbo, Jay A.

doi:10.1902/jop.1974.45.1.26

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[12][13][14][15] By contrast, although maximum contact between the teeth was officially labelled 'maximal intercuspal contact' (MIC) 16 or 'maximal intercuspal position' (MIP) 17 in the GPT-5 (1987), similar concepts had previously been used several times in the literature. [18][19][20][21] It is likely that the GPT-5 had an important impact on this group of concepts since it defined MIC as 'the complete intercuspation of the opposing teeth independent of condylar position' and defined CO as 'the occlusion of opposing teeth when the mandibular condyle is in centric relation; this may or may not coincide with the term maximum intercuspation position'. 14,16 Therefore, beginning with the GPT-5, a formal difference was established between the concepts of CO and MIC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several articles published between 1923 and 1956, used the maximum contact between the teeth as definition for the CO concept, 6–11 which is also observed in the GPT‐1 (1956) to GPT‐4 (1977) 12–15 . By contrast, although maximum contact between the teeth was officially labelled ‘maximal intercuspal contact’ (MIC) 16 or ‘maximal intercuspal position’ (MIP) 17 in the GPT‐5 (1987), similar concepts had previously been used several times in the literature 18–21 . It is likely that the GPT‐5 had an important impact on this group of concepts since it defined MIC as ‘the complete intercuspation of the opposing teeth independent of condylar position’ and defined CO as ‘the occlusion of opposing teeth when the mandibular condyle is in centric relation; this may or may not coincide with the term maximum intercuspation position’ 14,16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Declarative knowledge in oral health: The case of the term ‘centric occlusion’

Astudillo-Rozas

Valdivia-Gandur

Vasquez

et al. 2022

Eur J Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe lack of academic agreement in the practical or clinical use of declarative knowledge can generate unnecessary confusion and miscommunication. The concept Centric Occlusion (CO) is part of the body of declarative knowledge in dentistry, but its definition remains unclear.ObjectiveTo ascertain the CO concept in articles published in dental journals as a study case for the dentistry “corpus” of declarative knowledge.MethodologyThe alternative definitions of CO used by the GPT (Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms) from 1956–1977, ‘CO as a synonym for maximum intercuspal contact (MIC)’, or by the GPT from 1987–2017, ‘CO may or may not coincide with MIC’, were searched in the articles. The association between the CO definition used and variables such as article aims, journal scope and authors specialty was assessed.ResultsEight hundred and twelve articles were analysed. The widespread use of CO as synonym of MIC was the main finding and was significantly associated to the Orthodontics field. The CO definition according to the GPT 1987–2017 was less frequently observed but appeared in all dentistry fields, showing a significant association with the Oral Rehabilitation field. The difficulty of incorporating the current definition of CO (by GPT) into the main clinical discussions was evidenced all the long of the review process.ConclusionThe lack of consensus in the concept use was confirmed by the present study case, showing the influence of specific fields in Oral Health declarative knowledge. This methodology can provide a tool to the academy to assess controversial terms or concepts in Oral Health education, thus facilitating the critical and reflexive learning by students.

show abstract