In dental functional analysis and therapy, the concept of centric occlusion/centric relation has been an issue - and partly a myth - for almost a century. Numerous attempts have been, and are still being, made to define the 'correct' or 'ideal' spatial classification of the jaw in static occlusion. However, the results to date are unsatisfactory. What could be the reasons for this? A logical and semantic analysis of three of the key definitions of centric reveals that all the approaches to date have been bound to fail. What is being referred to - the reference object (the 'ideal' maxillomandibular relation) - either cannot be identified or the definition is contrary to fundamental dentistry principles. There can never be an 'ideal' jaw relation, but only a set of physiologically equivalent jaw relations. For this reason, in the author's opinion, we should cease using the term centric in dental discussions. Keywords: centric, centric relation, centric condylar position, physiological centric, extension, reference object, linguistic analysis