• Users Online: 1528
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2005  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 26-32

Comparative evaluation of hight tracer, Chandra tracer, intraoral tracer, functiograph and checkbite: A clinical study

1 Department of Prosthodontics, M. R. Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics, AECS Maruti Dental College, Bangalore, India

Correspondence Address:
V V Nandini
No. 2, Jayammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai - 600 003
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.16338

Rights and Permissions

PURPOSE: Centric and eccentric relations of mandible can be recorded through check bites, graphic recordings, functional recordings and cephalometrics. These records are then transferred to a semi-adjustable articulator so that it can be set to simulate the human system. This study is an attempt to compare the relative accuracy of the checkbite and graphic recordings using cephalometrics as a standard. AIMS: To compare the efficiency of hight tracer, Chandra tracer, Conventional intraoral tracer, Functiograph and Checkbite in determining centric relation. To compare the efficiency of hight tracer, Chandra tracer, Conventional intraoral tracer, Functiograph and Checkbite in determining horizontal condylar guidance angle on Hanau H2 articulator with the aid of both centric and eccentric records. To compare the horizontal angle values thus obtained on the Hanau H2 articulator with horizontal angle values in cephalometric tracings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hight tracer, Chandra tracer, Conventional intraoral tracer, Functiograph and Checkbite were used on 10 edentulous subjects to obtain centric and protrusive records. Lateral cephalograms were made at both centric and protrusive positions with each method and the horizontal condylar values thus obtained were compared with those obtained on Hanau H2 articulator. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the cephalometric and articulator values in all the five experimental methods. There was no significant difference between Hight tracer, Chandra tracer, Intraoral tracer, Functiograph and Checkbite methods. Ranking the experimental methods in the order of efficiency: the first was the Intraoral tracer, second being Functiograph followed by Chandra tracer, Checkbite and Hight tracer. Checkbite alone can be used to set the horizontal angles on the articulator in edentulous subjects, clinically. Tracings can be used as a verificatory method. Centric relation position was found to be the same in a subject with all the experimental methods. Each experimental method can influence the condylar path differently in the eccentric position. CONCLUSIONS: The articulator value of horizontal condylar angle was higher than cephalometric value in majority of the subjects in all the five experimental methods.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1057    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal