Myths surrounding vertical dimension of occlusion in restorative dentistry: A scoping review

This scoping review aims to clarify the concept of vertical dimension of occlusion (VDO) in prosthetic dentistry, addressing prevalent myths, and controversies regarding its clinical management and impact on the stomatognathic system.

This paper critically examines common beliefs about VDO alteration and its effects on temporomandibular disorders (TMD) through an extensive literature review and an international survey. The survey included 862 general dentists and prosthodontists and explored their approaches to altering VDO and their perceptions of the clinical implications. The literature review provided a thorough analysis of existing research on VDO modification techniques, the adaptability of the stomatognathic system, and the relationship between VDO changes and TMD.

The survey revealed insights into dentists' perspectives on VDO, showing that while many practitioners test a new VDO due to concerns about patient adaptation, a significant majority observed that patients typically adjust well to a new VDO regardless of the technique used. The survey highlighted differing beliefs about the need for a gradual process and trial phase for VDO alteration, as well as the stability of modified VDO. Literature review suggests the stability and adaptability of VDO changes due to muscle adaptability and indicates no direct causal or curative link between VDO changes and TMD. Traditional methods for determining VDO in complete dentures may not be suitable for worn dentition, underscoring the need for tailored approaches.

This paper suggests that the traditional belief in the need for a prolonged trial phase for VDO alterations may be reconsidered in light of evidence supporting the adaptability of the stomatognathic system. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between methods suitable for complete dentures and those for managing cases of worn dentition. The purported link between VDO alterations and TMD is also found to lack scientific evidence, highlighting the need for individualized patient care based on current evidence and clinical judgment.