Summary
Occlusion schools have created a mechanistic construct that seeks to explain, under a reductionist and deterministic model, a craneal-cervical and stomatognathic complex dynamic. These occlusion models dedicate more importance to dental morphology and its interpretative geometries than a stomatognathic morphophysiology. Craneocervical musculoskeletal configuration has the gained power to concomitantly influence the jaw location in the space and implicitly in the interocclusal relations. The current vision of the occlusion is based on empirical observations of almost a century that lack support in the level of evidence framework. In the functional dimension occlusion models maintain the same gaps that existed from its origins since the last century, particularly in its static, uniaxic and anti-dynamic spatial representations that dismiss the individuality of each subject. Each specialty can have as many reasons as different points of view about “malocclusion” as well as techniques to treat it.
KEY WORDS: terminal hinge axis, centric relation, bilateral occlusion, group occlusion, mutually protected occlusion, temporomandibular joint, temporomandibular disorder.
How to cite this article
RAMIREZ, L. M. & BALLESTEROS, L. E. Dental occlusion: mechanistic doctrine or morphophysiological logical? nt. J. Odontostomat., 6(2):205-220, 2012.
