TY - JOUR
T1 - Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle
T2 - Critically Appraised Topic (CAT)
AU - Goldstein, Gary
AU - Goodacre, Charles
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - Purpose: The objective of this Critically Appraised Topic was to determine the level of evidence relative to the usefulness of the Frankfort mandibular plane angle in prosthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: The Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) mesh heading received zero PubMed references, as did Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle (FMA) as a determinant for dental occlusion and Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle as a determinant of the occlusal scheme. Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle alone received 168 PubMed citations that highlighted 2 DiPietro articles and a third from the orthodontics literature which was a Randomized Controlled Trial not relevant to the PICO. Four others, three prosthodontic and one orthodontic publication, were related to the PICO. A Google search revealed one additional article, which was a narrative review. Results: Nine articles were related to the search, 2 of which were clinical trials that revealed no evidence to support the use of FMA as a diagnostic test. Conclusion: Based on the limited data presented above, there is a lack of evidence to support the use of FMA as a diagnostic procedure to predict outcomes, or dictate prosthodontic treatment.
AB - Purpose: The objective of this Critically Appraised Topic was to determine the level of evidence relative to the usefulness of the Frankfort mandibular plane angle in prosthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: The Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) mesh heading received zero PubMed references, as did Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle (FMA) as a determinant for dental occlusion and Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle as a determinant of the occlusal scheme. Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle alone received 168 PubMed citations that highlighted 2 DiPietro articles and a third from the orthodontics literature which was a Randomized Controlled Trial not relevant to the PICO. Four others, three prosthodontic and one orthodontic publication, were related to the PICO. A Google search revealed one additional article, which was a narrative review. Results: Nine articles were related to the search, 2 of which were clinical trials that revealed no evidence to support the use of FMA as a diagnostic test. Conclusion: Based on the limited data presented above, there is a lack of evidence to support the use of FMA as a diagnostic procedure to predict outcomes, or dictate prosthodontic treatment.
KW - Frankfort mandibular plane angle
KW - occlusion
KW - restorative dentistry
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103424908&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85103424908&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jopr.13314
DO - 10.1111/jopr.13314
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33783089
SN - 1059-941X
VL - 30
SP - 61
EP - 63
JO - Journal of Prosthodontics
JF - Journal of Prosthodontics
ER -