A survey to determine agreement regarding the definition of centric relation

Gary Goldstein, Mark Andrawis, Mijin Choi, Jonathan Wiens, Malvin N. Janal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Statement of problem The definition of centric relation (CR) has been both controversial and divisive, with little consensus. Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether agreement can be reached on a definition for CR among the Fellows of the Academy of Prosthodontics, the organization that writes the Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms. Material and methods A survey of the Fellows of the Academy of Prosthodontics was conducted at the organization's annual business meeting. Results Of the 83 eligible Fellows in attendance, 72 responded to the survey, a response rate of 86%. Of those, the 5 responders who did not indicate a preferred definition and the 2 that chose 2 definitions were censored, yielding an analyzable sample of 65 for the definitions. The most common definition received 19 votes, the next 16, and the third 13, with the other 6 definitions receiving from 2 to 5 votes. Some of the variability in definition depended on the era of training. Conclusions Disagreement and confusion continues regarding the definition of centric relation. Some of this disagreement can be explained by training era.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)426-429
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2017

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'A survey to determine agreement regarding the definition of centric relation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this