Evolution of Occlusion

ACADEMICS AND EDUCATION Evolution of Occlusion and Occlusal Instruments Curtis M. Becker, DDS, MSD* and Dauid A. Kaiser, DDS, MSDT

All occlusal concepts are based, in part, on theory, and all theories may have borrowed from the past. This article reviews the evolution of occlusal concepts to understand how differing theories interrelate, where they agree, and where each concept contributed to the ongoing understanding and evolution of occlusion principles. Also, the flexible and practical concept of biologic occlusion is presented. The philosophy of biologic occlusion is one that functions in health. The goals of biologic occlusion are also presented.

J Prosthod 2:33-43. Copyright 0 1993 by the American College of Prosthodontists.

INDEX WORDS: occlusion, articulator, gnathology, transographics, cranial orthopedics, centric relation, biological occlusion

HEN STUDYING modern concepts of occlusion, one should consider how curreni princi-

ples evolved (Fig 1). Because modern schools of occlusion may vary, acccptance or rejection of principles tends to be based on: (1) past training (dental school), (2) personality of the authority presenting the theory, (3) the latest fad, (4) ease in technique, and (5) scientific evidence. All occlusal concepts are based in part on theory, and all of these theories borrow in part from the past. This article reviews the evolution of occlusal concepts: not with thc idca of criticism of each theory, but with attempt to evaluate these theories, their interrclationships, where they agree, and where each concept contribuied to our ongoing understanding of occlusion.

Early Concepts The first mechanical articulator was invented by J.B. Gariot in 1805.',* It was a plain line instrument and it is still in use today (Fig 2). In 1858 Bonwill dcscribed his triangular thcory whereby he postulated that the distance from the incisal edges of the lower incisors to each condyle is 4 inches, and the distance between the condyles is 4 inches (Fig 3). Honwill proposed a

*ilrsoriate Ciiniral Prufissor, Department of Fixed A-octhodorrtics, School ofDent is ty , lIniversi@ ~Coloradu, Dmzer, GO.

TAssociate Pr&w and Intm.m Chairman, Dejmrlment of Prnsthodon- tics, Unznluerrig qf Texas Health Science Center at Sari Antonio, TX.

Address repnril teguestJ tu Dauid A. Kaiser. DDS, MSD, Dioirion of Pmthodontir Dmtisty, Unioenity o j Texas Health Scimce Center ot Son Antonio Dental School, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr, San ilntonio, TX 78284- 7890.

Cofyright 0 1993 by the A w n c a n College oJFrodhodontirts I0.59-981XJ 931 O201-00O78.iOO j 0

concept of bilatcral balanccd occlusion3 and devcl- oped an articulator that applied his 4-inch triangular theory.4 In 1866 Balkwill discovered that during lateral jaw movement, the translating condyle moved medially." In 1890 the German anatomist Von Spee observed that the occlusal plane of the teeth followed a curve in the sagittal plane. Von Spec attempted to describe the relationship between the condylar path and this compensating curve, or "curve of Spee," by stating that the steeper the condylar path (in protrusive), the more pronounced would be the compensating We know today that this relationship is not necessarily true; however, from the concepts of these three mcn came thc age of occlusal theory and occlusal articulators. Literally hundreds of articulators came and went in the early 1900~.',~

Age of Occlusal Theories and Occlusal Articulators

In 1899 Snow devised a method for transfcrring articulated casts to the articulator with a face bow.' In 1901 Christensen observed the opening of the posterior teeth in mandibular protrusion (Christen- sen phenomenon) .9Jo Christensen thcn devclopcd a technique for registering the degree of posterior separation and an articulator with adjustable condyle controls. This was still a lwo-dimensional instrument, but an cvolutionary improvement over the Gariot instrument. In 1908 Bennctt described the immediate side shift (Bennett tnovernent)." The origin for the introduction of the incisal pin to articulators is uncleare; howcvcr, the first published article where an incisal pin is dcmonstrated was

Journol ofProsthodontics. Vol2, N o I (March), I993:pp 33-43 33

34 Occlusion and Occlilsal Instrument.r R d e r and Kaiser

Evolution of Occlusion Gariot 1805 Snow 1806

Balkwill 1866

Stansberry 1929 THEORETICAL / GEOMETRICAL (No Science)

Hall 1914 \

Gysi 1910

Monson 1919

c Meyer 1933

GNATHOLOGY

3 McCollum

Stallard Granger Sluart

Lauritren Lucia Thomas Guichet

M Y I I ' I W I W I Y J U I Y

Avery bros. 1930 Pleasure 1937

P. M. S. SYSTEM

TR ANSOGRAPHICS Dawson I

1 PERIODONTAL PROSTHESIS I

~

J Page 1951 x 1 CRANIAL ORTHOPEDICS

Harold Gelb

Amsterdam Prichard Yuodelis Lindhe

Eversaul

t BIOLOGIC OCCLUSION Figure 1. Diagrammatic reprrsrntation o f the evolution of occlusion.

Figure 2. Plain line articulator similar to that invented byJ.B. Gariot in 1805.

written in 1910 by Gysi.12 Gysi's instrument was one of the first to allow for the Balkwill-Bennett movements.

Before 1916 Monson formulated a three-dimensional occlusal philosophy by conibirling the concepts of Bonwill's 4-inch triangle and bilateral balanced occlusion, Von Spee's compensating curve, and the observances of Balkwill and Christensen on condylar mo\~ement . '~- '~ This occlusal model was named the Sjhrical Thory (Fig 4) and was one of the first attempts a t presenting a working theory of three- dimensional occlusal concepts. Monson then dcvcl- oped an articulator that attempted to allow the dentist to apply the concepts of the spherical theory in prosthetic dentistry; however, Monson's instrument did not provide for the condylar movements as described by Balkwill and Bennett. The occlusal

March 1993, Volume 2, iVuniber 1 35

Figure 3. Bonnills 4-inch triangular theory of 1858.

concepts, techniques, and the articulator advocated by Monson was extremely popular throughout the 1920s and Lhough Monsons articulator is no longer in use, vestiges of the spherical theory are still in use today.

During and after the time Monson was unveiling his spherical theory of occlusion, there was a period of time where technical advances were being per- fcctcd in the recording of jaw rclations and in the sophistication ofarticulators. The work of Gysi exern- plified this desire for technical improvement. In 1910 G p i improved on Balkwills arrow point tracer to allow visual registration of centric relational6 Gysi

Figure 4. Monsons Spheri- cal theory was one of the first three-dimensional occlusal concepts.

Figure 5. One of Gysis adjustable articulators, which uscd an incisal pin.

also developed a series of articulators with surprising sophistication and a d j ~ s t a b i l i t f J ~ , ~ ~ (Fig 5).

Geometry of the articulator movements became paramount for .justification of theorics replacing scientific investigaiion and observation. In 1918 Hall presented his conical theory,18J9 whcre it was believed that the condyles were not the guides to mandibular movement. Instead, the occluding planes of the teeth were the guides for mandibular movement. Bilateral balance was one of the goals of this theory Geometry was used as justification and an articulator was developed to fit the theoretical concepts (Fig 6).

In 192 1, ihe engineer Hanau introduced an occlu-

I

36 Orclanon and Orclural Imtrumentc. 0 Becker and Kuwr

Figure 6. The Hall articulator was developed to implement the Conical Theory of Occlusion and was based on geometrical relationships.

sal instrument (Fig 7) that was based on the scientific writings of Snokv and Gysi.J Hanau rejected the spherical theory and proposed the rocking chair denture occlusion in 1923.20 This rocking chair theory involved heavy contact to the first molar areas to compensate for the resiliency and like effect, which referred to the resiliency of soft tissue and temporomandibular joint. Hanau advocated bilateral bal-

Figure 7. A Hanau articulator.

anced occlusion with eccentric mandibular movements and was the first to advocate that articulator movements should be the equivalent of mandibular movement.

In 1929 Stansberry modified Gysis arrow point tracer by adding a central bearing point that allowed convenience in making the centric relation record and eccentric jaw position records. These records were then used to transfer casts of the patient to the articulator, the Stansberry Tripod (Fig 8) .22

In the 1930s Meyer was advocating the use of the functionally generated path or chew in technique for recording bilateral balancing contacts in eccentric r n o v e n i e n t ~ . ~ ~ - ~ ~ At about this same time, articles began to appear that questioned the Monson theory. The Avery brothers, in 1930, introduced the anti- Monson Theov, which advocated a reverse occlusal curve of Wilson-lateral compensating cunre (Fig 9).27 The Avery brothers theorized that this reverse curve would stabilize the lower complete denture. The theorywas based in part on the observation that the occlusion of dentures and natural dentitions tend to wear in a reverse curve fashion, ie, maxillary lingual cusps and mandibular buccal cusps showing the most wear. The anti-Monson theory does not allow for bilateral balance in eccentric jaw movements and was one of the first occlusal theories to abandon this concept. Pleasure, in 1937, introduced his Pleasure curve (Fig which advocates the anti-Monson reverse cune except for the second molars. The second molars are tipped up to allow for bilateral balance of three points (incisal and both

Figure 8. The Stansberry Tripod articulator.

Murch 199.7, V o h m ~ 2, Number I 37

Anti - Monson ( A w r y brs.)

Figure 9. Diasgram of the anti-Monson concept as proposed by the Avery brothers in 1930.

second molars) in eccentric movements. The Plea- sure curve retained the alleged benefits of the anti- Monson curve while allowing for bilateral balance in eccentric movements.

The occlusal concepts proposed during this period of dental history from 1800 to approximately 1930, which one could call the age of occlusal theories, can be summarized as being basically formulated for complete denture patients in which bilateral balanced occlusion in eccentric movements was consid- ered essential. The efforts by these dental pioneers to develop occlusal instruments were driven primarily by the need to implement the proposed occlusal theory.

Modern Occlusal Concepts Pankey, Mann, Schuyler System

In the late 1920s, groups of researchers began to formulate systematic approaches to restoring the natural dentition. Pankey and Mann are examples of this evolutionary process of formulating concepts for natural dentitions while also devising a systematic approach to reconstructive dentistry. The Punkq- Mann system was originally an amalgamation of the Monson theory and the Meyer functionally generated path technique, where they attempted to gain bilateral balance in eccentric movements (a holdover from complete denture occlusal theories). The technique involved restoring the mandibular posterior occlusion to a 4-inch sphere as described by Monson.

Pleasur C u r v e

e

The maxillary posterior occlusion was thcn fabri- cated to the mandibular occlusal form by using the maxillary anterior teeth as guidesz3 for the chew in registration as advocated by Me~er . ~ A suspension instrument (Fig 11) was used for articulating the casts, which had no functional movement capability. It was argued that articulator movement was unnec- essary because functional limits were recorded uith the chcw-in registration.

A few years later Schuyler joined with Pankey and Mann to evolve what is now known as the P.iz/I.S. (Panky, Mann, Schuyluj This occlusal system retained the Monson spherical theory and the functionally generated path technique; however, under Schuylers in f l~ence~-~~: ( 1) the balancing side contacts were eliminated; (2) the importance of incisal guidance was elevated; (3) the concept of long centric or functional centric occlusion was proposed in which centric occlusion is thought of as an area ofcontact rather than a point contact; and (4) the Hanau occlusal instrument with arbitrary face bow and Broadrick occlusal plane analyzer was adopt- ed.3G

Gnathology

At approximately the same time that Pankey and Mann were forrnulating their concepts of occlusion, another group of researchers headed by McCollum

Figure 11. A suspension instrument was originally used by thc Pankey-Mann-Schuyler system of occlusion. Note this instrument is basically a plain line instrument.

Figure 10. Diagram of the Pleasure curve as proposed byh1.A. Pleasure in 1937.

38 Occlusion and Occlusal Instruments Beckerand Kairpr

was studying mandibular m o v e m ~ n t . ~ ~ - ~ ~ The main thrust of their study was the rotational centers of the condyles in three dimensions: vertical plane; sagittal plane; and horizontal plane, One assumption was that the horizontal rotational center passes through both condyles (collinear hinge axis). These researchers believed that if the rotational centers in the condyles could be located, and if the border movements of these rotational centers were recorded and reproduccd on a sophisticated three-hmensional articulator, then all functional motions for the pa- ticnt could also be reproduced by that instrument. Once the basic concepts were formulated, research eKorts were centered on methods to locate and record these rotational centers and their border movements. Many ingenious inventions were tried and discarded until finally the instrument we know as the pantograph evolved. With the pantograph one could, for the first time, record the three-dimensional border movements of the condylar rotational centers. Great efforts were then directed to develop highly sophisticated three-dimensional adjustable articulators that would accept and reproduce the mea- surements recorded by the pantograph. The concepts taught by McCollum and his associates eventually became known as Gnathology.

Cnathologic theory at this early time included: (1) establishing via a hinge axis location thc rotational centers of the condyles; (2) recording the three- dimensional envelope of motion of the condyles via the pantographic tracing; (3) maximum intercuspa- tion of the teeth when the condyles are in their hinge position; and (4) bilateral balance with eccentric jaw movements. Because these gnathologic rcsearchers felt that the condyles were the determinants of occlusal schemes, they discovered that the side shift of the condyle would greatly affect cuspal position, especially if bilateral balance was deemed beneficial.

Two of the early gnathologic researchers, Stallard and Stuart, felt that the basic theory of mandibular movement was fundamentally correct, but the appli- cation of this knowledge was misdirected. They proposed eliminating the balancing contacts in eccentric jaw movements by having the canines on the working side disclude the posterior teeth; they named it the Cuspid Protection Theoy.'O This also became known as the Mutual& Protected System.41

Anumber ofother technical developments evolved during the 1940s and 1950s that helped the popularity and accessibility of the gnathologic concepts.

and Thomas43 developed systematic waxing techniques that allowed for the development of an

Figure 12. The Stuart articulator.

acceptable occlusal scheme when all the posterior teeth had been prepared. Stuart improved the design of the gnathologic instrument (Fig 12). Guichet greatly simplified the pantographic recorder and developed hi.; gnathologic instrument, the Denar (Fig 13). Cuichet brought pathology into the aver- age dental office through extensive continuing educa- tional courses for the practitioner and organized study club^?^^^^ Guichet also advocated overcompen- sation of the gnathologic instrument settings to give

Figure 13. The Denar articulator.

March 1993, Volume 2, iVumfkr I 39

increased disclusion rather than laboriously making the instrument follow the lines of the pa~i tograph .~~

Tmnsographics

During the 1950s, the engineer Page contended that each mandibular condyle has its OWTI axis of rotation and that these axes are not c o I l i n ~ a r $ ~ ~ ~ ~ as was postulated by gnathologic theory. Page then developed an occlusal theory, which was called Transograph- ki, and an occlusal instrument, the Transograph (Fig 14). This was dcsigned to allow for independent three-dimensional condylar movement.9 Transo- graphic theory questioned the need to record the total envelope of motion (pantographing) and instead advocated using wax rcgistrations to rccord a much smaller functional area within the envelope of motion, which Page termed the functional envelope. Page felt that the occlusal form of posterior teethwas determined by the asymmetrical condylar axis, the functional envelope, and thc angle of thc mandible. Transographics lost favor as a widely accepted occlusal theory after Page died, but his theories did bring renewed interest in research to prove or disprove the existence of collinear condylar axes. Preston, in reviewing this subject, states the following:

Past experiments have been use@, but none haae proven or dirpoaen the presence qf collineur a7 noncollinear condylar arcs. On& the arc of the ri,,id clutch and i ts arsonated mechanirm is ha ted . Such an a[$arent arc m q re5ultjum the resolution ojcompund condylar rnouements.j0

The value of the Transographic theory lies in the

Figure 14. The Transograph articulator.

unanswered questions it raised, such as: ( 1 ) are condylar axes collinear or asymmetrical?, (2) is immediate side shift normal function or the result of pathology?, and (3) should occlusal instruments be expected to reproduce jaw movement? The diminish- ing popularity of Transo

40 Occlusion and Occlwal Instruments Becker and Kairer

Mandibular Centricity (Centric Relation)

With the exception of cranial orthopedics, nearly all concepts of occlusion have embraced the practice of mandibular centricity, which early writers loosely referred to as centric relation (CR) but rarely defined this jaw position. Hanau, in 1929, defined centric relation as the position of the mandible in which the condylar heads are resting upon the menisci in the sockets of the glenoid fossae, regard- less of the opening of the jaws, and he also states that the relation is either strained or unstrained. Hanau preferred the unstrained centric relation associated with an accepted opening for the refer- ence jawre la t i~n?~ Niswonger, in 1934, described CR as a position where the patient can clinch the back teeth.j5 Schuyler, in 1935, defined the centro- maxillomandibular position or centric position as when the upper lingual cusps are resting in the central fossae of the opposing lower bicuspids and molars.. . .5G Thompson, in 1946, lamented the lack of knowledge upon which clinical procedures were based by stating . . . some believe that, in centric relation, the condyles are in the most retruded position in their fossae, while others maintain they are

The earl,: writers rarely if ever advocated manual manipulation of the mandible to achieve their centric jaw registration. Needles, in 1923, used an intraoral arrow point tracer in which the patient retruded the mandible to its fullest extent.58 Schuyler, in 1932, advised using wax interocclusal records and the patient may be requested to place the tip of the tongue Far back on the palate and to hold it there while closing. It is quite impossiblc for one to pro- trude the mandible when this position of the tongue is retained.59 Meyer, using the functionally generated path Lechnique, did not attempt to manipulate the mandible other than to instruct the patient occasionally in getting started by exerting a little pressure on the chin.*q Mandibular nianipulation grew in acceptance with the increased interest in gnathologic philosophy, and writers began to warn of strain to the condyles. Robinson, in 1951, stated that the rnandible can be retruded beyond what we should consider centric into a strained retruded position.jo

As the debate of how to define the centric jaw position escalated, new terms began to appear in the literature. Terms like posterior border closure; relaxed closure, bracing position, hinge position, ligamentous position, retruded contact

position, and terminal hinge position added con- fusion. Even the different disciplines within dentistry could not agree on the definition of centric relation. Goldman and Cohen defined centric relation as the most posterior relation of the mandible to the maxilla from which lateral movements can be made.61 Glickman stated ccntric relation is the most retruded position to which the mandible can be carried by the patients musculat~ire.~~ Graber refused to bc drawin into the controversy, stating only that the position must be the unstrained, neutral position of the mandible.. .63 Schluger, Yuodelis, and Page stated that centric relation is the position assumed by the mandible relative to the maxilla when the condyles are in their rearmost, midmost position in the glenoid fossae.li4 This definition is very close to the gnathologic RUM definition as proposed by McCollum and Stuart, where the condyles are in their rearmost, uppermost, and midmost position in their respective f o ~ s a e . ~ ~ In an effort to standardize this and other commonly used terms, the Academy of Prosthodontics (formerly the Academy of Denture Prosthetics) has published the Glossay $Prosthodontic Terms. This glossary is updated periodically and has five editions since the first in 1956. Every time there is an update, the definition of centric relation changes. Avant, in 1971, decried the seven definitions of centric relation appearing in the 2nd edition of 196flb6 Schluger, Yuodelis, and Page confessed that the word centric may bc the most controversial term in dentistry, not only from a semantic point of view but also due to differences in concept, and they admit that these serious differences in concept may never be resolved.@ The newest edition (1987) of the Glossa91 ?f Prosthodontics Term defines centric relation as A maxillomandibular relationship in which the condyles articulate with the thinnest avas- cular portion oftheir respective disks with the com- plex in the anterior-superior position against the slopes of the articular eminesces. The authors of this 5th edition of the Glo.~say $Prosthodontic T m state This term (CR) is in transition to obsoles- ~ence .~ Wishful thinking, or admission that the more we attempt to define this important concept of clinical dentistry, the more confusing it becomes? The current definition of CR is considerably different from the definitions used by Hanau, Niswonger, Schuyler, and the other early giants of dentistry. These clinical dentists recorded centric relation differ- ently than is commonly done today, but the concept of mandibular centricity remains constant even

March I993> Volume 2, Number I 41

though the definition and the tcchniques have evolved and probably will continue to evolve.

Biological Occlusion

There is ample reason to believe that many success- ful long-term clinical treatments have bcen accom- plished using each of the modern schools of occlusion. Because dentitions can be maintained successfully with several apparently conflicting occlusal conccpts, there is a growing realization that occlusal concepts are not as cut and dried as we once thought. The flexible concept of occlusion is termed biological occlusion, and its philosophical goal is to achieve an occlusion that functions and maintains health. This occlusion may include malp- posed teeth, evidence of wear, missing teeth, and centric occlusion may not always equal centric relation. The dominant factor is that this occlusion has shown its ability to survive, thus implying an age factor, ie, a teenager with temporomandibular joint symptoms does not fit this occlusal concept, while an asymptomatic 80-year-old with balancing side contacts does. One who fits this concept needs no occlusal therapy. However, when occlusal therapy is indicated (ie, mutilated dentition, occlusal trauma- tism, temporomandibular joint dysfunction), then basic guidelines for occlusal design are needed. These goals are compatible with almost all of the occlusal concepts commonly used today for natural dentitions including P.M.S., Gnathology, and Transographics.

Goals of Biological Occlusion No Intet$mnces Between Centric Occlusion and Centric Relation

Very few patients naturally function in centric relation occlusion; however, centric relation is a very valuable position in restorative dentistry. To demand that the condyles be in their hinge position when the teeth are in the maximum intercuspal position and to stay that way for long periods of time is unreasonable. It is not unreasonable to assure that there are no cuspal interferences between centric relation (CR) and centric occlusion (CO), CR and CO as defined by the Glossay ofProsthodontic Terms, 1987.3

No Balancing Contacts

Years of observation, trial and error, and scientific investigation have brought realization that nonwork-

ing contacts in natural dentitions have the potential of being very destructive. The criteria requires that disclusion occurs as thc mandible moves laterally. Because the mandible can flex68.6q and the articulator does not (except for the Transograph), the amount of disclusion needed can vary and must be tested in the mouth for each individual patient.

Cusp-to-Fossa Occlusal Scheme

While cusp tips can function effectively against mar- ginal ridges, a cusp-fossa relationship is potentially more stable than any other relationship.

A Minimum of One Contactper Tooth

It is preferred that every vertical dimension cusp (buccal of the lower and lingual of the upper) be in full contact with the opposing fossa. However, there are times when this is not practical, thus as a bare minimum one should have at least one cusp-to-fossa contact for each posterior tooth. If this is not achieved, the noncontacting tooth has the potential of erupting and shifting into a malposition, producing a balancing interference. The potential for a contacting tooth to shift into malposition is diminished if the vertical dimension cusps are engaging opposing fossas.

Cuspid Rise or Group Function

In order to assure that there are no balancing contacts, the working side must disclude the posterior teeth on the balancing side during lateral ecccn- tric jaw movements. It is equally acceptable to achieve this disclusion with a cuspid rise or group [unction where the cuspid and/or bicuspids engage in lateral motion to disclude the balancing side occlusion. Also acceptable is a combination of cuspid rise and group function.

No Posterior Contacts With Protrusive Jaw Movements

As the mandible slides forward from the maximum intercuspal position, the anterior teeth should engage and progressively disclude the posterior teeth.

No Cross-Tooth Balancing Contacts

A cross-tooth contact occurs when the lower lingual cusps contact the upper lingual cusps on the working

side. Because the lower lingual cusps are nonfunction- ing, their reduction to eliminatp contact in lateral excursion is simple and prevents interference with group function. The potential for fracturr of these lower lingual cusps is also reduced.

Eliminate All Possible Fremitus

Fremitus is the movement of teeth in function; this undesirable phenomena is also called functional mo- k~ility.~ Freniitus usually occurs with pcriodontally compromised support. Fremitus often cannot be seen, but can be felt digitally when the teeth are occluded or when engaging in eccentric mandibular movements.

Obtain and Maintain a Neurological Release

The goal is a perceivable relaxation of the muscles of mastication allowing the operator to manipulate the mandible with little or no resistance from the patient. The presence of this neurological release is one sign that the occlusion is progressing toward har- monywith the muscles of mastication.

Summary The historical origins of some concepts of occlusion have been discussed. The cornerstones for several prominent occlusal concepts that have been developed for natural dentitions and are currently being applied to restorative dentistry have been presented. It is presumptuous to state natures intent for an ideal occlusion and therefore it is recommended to avoid occlusal therapy for individuals who appear to be functioning in health, even if their occlusal scheme does not fit a concept of optimum occlusion. When occlusal therapy is unavoidable, it is suggested to treat within the guidelines of what has been called biological occlusion.

References 1. Wilson GH: AManual of Dcntal Prosthctics. Philadelphia, PA,

2. Guerini V: Historical development of dental art. Dent Cosmos

3 . Richardson J: A Practical Treatise on hlcchanical Dentktry. Philadelphia, PA, Lindsay and Blakiston, 1860, p 66

4. Bonwill WGA: The scientific articulation of the human tccth as founded on geometrical mathmatical and mechanical laws. D. ItemsIntcrest 1899;21:617

I,ca&Pcbigcr, 1 9 l l , p I66

1 9 n i ; m

5. Balkwill FH: The best form and arrangement of artificial teeth for mastication. BrJ Dent Sci 18669278

6. Vun Spec F: Die vcrschiebungsbahn des unterkiefers am schatlel. Arch P Ariat U Physiol 1890

7. Gillis RR: Articulator development and the importance of obsening the condyle paths in full denture prosthesis. J Am Dent Assoc 1926;13:3

8. Hall KE: . h i analysis of the development of the articulator.,J Am Dent Assoc 1930;17:3

9. Christensen C: A rational articulator. Ashs Q Circ 1901;18:

10. Christensen C: Problems of the bite. Dent Cosmos 1905;47: 1184

1 I . Bcnnctt NG: A contribution to the vtudy of the movcmcnt of thc mandible. R Soc Med Sect Odont Proc 1908;1:79

12. Gysi A: Problem ofarticulation. Dent Cosmos 1910;52:1 13. Monson GS: Tissue atrophy resulting frorn compression of

tissues for the retention of dentures. .J Am Dent Assoc I92 1;8:922

14. Monson GS: Occlusion as applicd to crown and bridge-work. J Am Dcnt .hot 1920;7:399

15. Washburn HB: History and cvolution of the study of occlusion. Dent Cosmos 192.5;67:333

16. Gysi A: Problcmofarticulation. Dcnt Cosmos 1910;.52:148 17. Gysi A: Problem of articulation. Dcnt Cosmos 1910;52:1-9,

18. IIall RE: Movements of the mandible. J Am Dent Assoc 1920;7:677

19. Hall RE: An analysis ofthe work arid idcas ofinvestigators and authors of rclations and movements of the mandible. J Am r h t Assoc 1929;16:77

20. IIanau RL: The relation between mechanical and anatomical articulation. J Am Dent Assoc 1923;10:776

21. Hanau RL. Dental engineering.J Am Dent Assoc 1922;9:595 22. Stansbert-y CI: Functional position checkbitc techruque. J Am

23. Meyer FS: Cast bridgework in functional occlusion. J Am Dent

24. Meycr FS: A new simplc and accurate technic for obtaining balanced and functional occlusion. J Am Dent Assoc 1931;21: 195

25. hleyer ES: Balanccd and functional occlusion in relation to rtenturework.JAm Dent Assoc 3935;22:1156

26. Meyer FS: Can ttic plain line articulator meet all the demands of balanced and fiinctional occlusion in all restorative works?J Colorado Dent h s o c 1938; 17:6

27. Avcry BW, Aver). SIC A scissor-bite denture techniqur: LJsing incisal angles, parallel planes and diverging groovcs. J Am Dent h s o c 1930;17:1303

28. Pleasure Mk Prosthetic occlusion-a problem in mechanics. J Am Dent Assoc 1937;24:1303

29. Pankey LD. 14annAW: Oral rchabililation, part 11. Rcconstruc- tion of the upper leeth using a fimctinnally generated path technique.JProsthet Dent 1960;l0;10:151

30. h,lann AW, Pankcy LD: Oral rehabilitation, part I. Use of the P-,\.l instrument in treatment planning and in restoring the lower posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1960;10:135

31. Dawson PE: Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Occlu- sal Problems. St. Louis, MO, CVMosby: 1974, pp 108-1 10

32. Schuyler C: Correction of occlusal disharmony of natural dcntitions. NYDent.J 3946;13:415

409

I 48- I 69,268-28z,403-4 18

Dent Assoc 1929;16:421

A~~~~ 1933;20:1ni 5

March 1993, Khme 2, Nuin& I 43

33.

34.

3.5.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

14.

45.

46.

47. 48. 49.

50.

Schuyler C: Factors of occlusion applicable to restorative dentistry.. JProsthet Dent 1953:3:781 Schupr C: The function and importance of iricisal guidance in oral rehabilitation. J Prosthet Dent 1963;13:1011 Schuyler C:: Factors contributing to traumatic occlusion. J Prosthet Dent 196l;ll:70R Damon PE: Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Occlu- sal Problems. St Louis. MO, CVhfosby, 1974, pp 195-205 McCollum BB: A research report. Part I. Fundarneritals involved i n prrscribing rrstorativr dental rcmedies. Part 11. Articulation ofhuman teeth. Dent ItemsInterest 1939;61:522- 535,641-648,724-736,852-863,942-950 Stuart CE: Articulation of human teeth. Dent Items Interest 1939;61:1029-1037,1147-1154 Stuart CE: Articulation of human teeth. Dent Items Interest 1941);62:8-17, 106-112 Stallard H, Stuart CE: Eliminating tooth guidance in natural dentiti0ns.J Prosthet Dcnt 1961;l 1:474 Lucia VC): Modern Gnatholngic Concepts. St. Louis, MO, CV Mosby, 1961, p 295 Payne EV: W a x pattern fabrication, in Eissman HF (ed): Part ILI, Laboratory Procedures: Fixed Partial Dentures. St. Louis, MO, Mosby, 1980, p 135-140 Thomas P K Syllabur on full mouth waxing, technique for rchabilitation, tooth-to-tooth, cusp fossa concept of organic occlusion. school of dentistry, post-graduatc education, Univcr- sityof California, 1967 Guichet NF: Applied pathology: Why and how. Dent Clin North Am 1969; 13:687 Guichet NF: Occlusion, a collection of monographs. Anaheim, Denar Corp, 1970 Guichet W Procedures for occlusal trcatment, a teaching atlas. Anaheim, Denar Corp, 1968, pp 73,94 Page HL Centric and hinge-axis. Dent Digest 1951;57:115 Page HL The Bennett movement. Dent Digest 1951;57:412 Page HLi Transographics and the transograph. Dent Digest 1956;62: 162 Preston J D A reassessment of the mandibular transvcrsc horizontal axis t11eory.J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:605

52. GelbH Evaluation ofstaticccntric rclation in the temproman- dibular joint dysfunction syndrome. Dent Clin Korth Am 1975;19:519

53. Gelb H Clinical Management of Head, Heck and TMJ Pain and Dysfunction. Philadelphia, PA, Saunders, 1977, pp 32-38

54. Hanau RH: Occlusal changes in ccntric relation. J Am Dent Assoc 192% 16: 1903- I915

55. Niswonger .MF: The rest position of the mandible and centric relation.JAm DentAssoc 1934;21:1572-1582

56. Schuyler CH: Fundamental principles in the correction or occlusal disharmony, natural and artificial. J Am Dent Assoc 1935;22:1 193-1202

57. Thompson J R The rest position of the mandible and its significance to dental science. J Am Dent Assoc 1946;33:!53- 180

58. NeedlesJW: Practical uses of the curve of Spee.J Am Dent L4ssoc 1923; 109!2-927

59. .%huyler C H Intra-oral method of establishing maxillomandibular relations. JAm Dent Assoc 1932;19:!0!2-1021

60. Robinson MJ: Centric position. J Prosthet Dent 1951;1:384- 386

61. Goldman IIM, Cohen WD: Periodontal Therapy, ed 4. St. Louis, MO, Mosby, 1968, pp 53

62. Glickman I: Clinical Pericdontology, ed 3. Philadelphia, P.4, Saunders, 1966, pp 699

63. Graber TM Orthodontics, Principles and Practice, ed 2. Philadelphia, P.4, Saunders, 1966, pp 154

64. Schluger S, Yuodelis RA, Page RC: Periodontal Disease. Philadelphia, PA, Lea & Febiger, 1977, p 303

65. McCullum RB, Stuart CE: Gnathology, A Rrsearch Rrport. Pasadena CA, Scientific Prrss, 195.5

66. .4vant WE: lJsing the term centric. J Prosthet Dent 1971;25: 12-15

67. Nomenclature Committee, Academy of Denture Prosthetics, Glossary ol'Prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58,725

68. Guodkind KJ, Heringlake C@: Mandibular flexure in opening and closing movements. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30: 134

69. Fischman B: The rotational aspcct of mandibular Ilexure. J 5 I . Gelb H: The temprornandibular joint syndrome: Patient

communication and motivation. Dent ClinNorth Am 1970;14: 287

Prosthet Drnt 1990;64:483 70. WilsonTG Dental Maintenance for Patients MiithPrriodontal

Diseases. Chicago, IL, Quintcssence Publishing Co, 1989, p 26

Evolution of Occlusion

Documents

Transcript of Evolution of Occlusion