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 1993by 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 principles 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.

concept of bilatcral balanccd occlusion3 and devcloped 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 compensatWe know today that this relationship is
ing
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~.',~

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 ofDentisty, lIniversi@~Coloradu,Dmzer, GO.
TAssociatePr&w and Intm.m Chairman, Dejmrlment of Prnsthodontics, Unznluerrigqf 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 01993 by the A w n c a n College oJFrodhodontirts
I0.59-981XJ 931O201-00O78.iOOj 0

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 (Christensen 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

R d e r and Kaiser

Occlusion and Occlilsal Instrument.r

Evolution of Occlusion
Gariot 1805
Snow 1806
Gysi 1910

Balkwill 1866
THEORETICAL / GEOMETRICAL

Stansberry 1929

(No Science)

Monson 1919

Hall 1914

M Y I I'IWIWIYJUIY

Meyer 1933

Avery bros. 1930

Pleasure 1937

GNATHOLOGY

P. M. S. SYSTEM

McCollum
Granger

Stallard
Sluart
Lucia
Thomas
Guichet

Lauritren

TR ANSOGRAPHICS

Dawson

Page 1951

1PERIODONTAL PROSTHESIS I
x

Amsterdam
Prichard
Yuodelis
Lindhe

CRANIAL ORTHOPEDICS
Harold Gelb

Eversaul

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
m o \ ~ e m e n t . ' ~This
- ' ~ occlusal model was named the
Sjhrical Thory (Fig 4) and was one of the first
attempts a t presenting a working theory of threedimensional occlusal concepts. Monson then dcvcloped 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

35

March 1993, Volume 2, iVuniber 1

Figure 5. One of Gysis adjustable articulators, which

uscd an incisal pin.
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 perfcctcd in the recording of jaw rclations and in the
sophistication ofarticulators.The work of Gysi exernplified this desire for technical improvement. In 1910
G p i improved on Balkwills arrow point tracer to
allow visual registration of centric relational6Gysi

Figure 4. Monsons Spherical theory was one of the first

three-dimensional occlusal
concepts.

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,18J9whcre 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 1921, ihe engineer Hanau introduced an occlu-

36

Orclanon and Orclural Imtrumentc.

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 1923.20This 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.

Becker and Kuwr

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 antiMonson 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

A n t i - 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 Pleasure curve retained the alleged benefits of the antiMonson 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 considered essential. The efforts by these dental pioneers to
develop occlusal instruments were driven primarily
by the need to implement the proposed occlusal
theory.

37

The maxillary posterior occlusion was thcn fabricated to the mandibular occlusal form by using the
maxillary anterior teeth as guidesz3for the chew in
registration as advocated by M e ~ e r . A~ suspension
instrument (Fig 11) was used for articulating the
casts, which had no functional movement capability.
It was argued that articulator movement was unnecessary because functional limits were recorded uith
the chcw-in registration.
A few years later Schuylerjoined 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 i n f l ~ e n c e ~ (-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 adopted.3G

Gnathology

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 PunkqMann 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.

At approximately the same time that Pankey and

Mann were forrnulating their concepts of occlusion,
another group of researchers headed by McCollum

Pleasur e

Curve

Figure 10. Diagram of the Pleasure curve as proposed

byh1.A. Pleasure in 1937.

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.

38

Occlusion and Occlusal Instruments

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 paticnt 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 measurements 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 threedimensional envelope of motion of the condyles via
the pantographic tracing; (3) maximum intercuspation 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 application 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 Thomas43developed systematic waxing
techniques that allowed for the development of an

Beckerand Kairpr

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 average dental office through extensive continuing educational courses for the practitioner and organized
study club^?^^^^ Guichet also advocated overcompensation of the gnathologic instrument settings to give

Figure 13. The Denar articulator.

March 1993, Volume 2, iVumfkrI

39

increased disclusion rather than laboriously making

unanswered questions it raised, such as: ( 1 ) are
the instrument follow the lines of the p a ~ i t o g r a p h . ~ ~ condylar axes collinear or asymmetrical?, (2) is immediate side shift normal function or the result of
pathology?, and (3) should occlusal instruments be
Tmnsographics
expected to reproduce jaw movement? The diminishing popularity of Transo<graphicsis apparently due
During the 1950s, the engineer Page contended that
each mandibular condyle has its OWTI axis of rotation
more to its awkward instrument, lack of technical
progress, and the passing of its chief spokesman
and that these axes are not c o I l i n ~ a r $as
~ ~was
~~
postulated by gnathologic theory. Page then develrather than hard scientific rebuttal from academic
oped an occlusal theory, which was called Transographresearch.
ki, and an occlusal instrument, the Transograph (Fig
14). This was dcsigned to allow for independent
three-dimensional condylar movement.9 TransoCranial Ch-thupedics
graphic theory questioned the need to record the
total envelope of motion (pantographing) and inThe most visible proponent of the concept of cranial
stead advocated using wax rcgistrations to rccord a
orthopedics (also called oral orthopedics) is Gelb.5-53
The basic concept centers around the belief that the
much smaller functional area within the envelope of
motion, which Page termed the functional envelope.
movement of the mandible is not influenced by the
Page felt that the occlusal form of posterior teethwas
shape ofthe condyles, but the condyles may assume a
determined by the asymmetrical condylar axis, the
certain shape because the mandible has assumed
functional envelope, and thc angle of thc mandible.
certain movements. Cranial orthopedics is interested
Transographics lost favor as a widely accepted occluin establishing postural relationships of the jaws.
sal theory after Page died, but his theories did bring
Occlusion is secondary to obtaining optimal postiiral
renewed interest in research to prove or disprove the
relations of the mandible to the maxilla. The proper
existence of collinear condylar axes. Preston, in
relationship of the head on the spine is essential for
reviewing this subject, states the following:
proper total body posture and balance. Thus, an
improper jaw relationship will mean impaired posPast experiments have been use@, but none haae proven or
ture and balan~e.5~
dirpoaen the presence qf collineur a7 noncollinear condylar
Geometry is the primary basis for achieving posarcs. On& the arc of the ri,,id clutch and its arsonated
mechanirm is h a t e d . Such an a[$arent arc m q re5ultjum
tural balance, and like Halll8,lgin the 1920s, geomethe resolution ojcompund condylar rnouements.j0
try is used to justify the theoretical and therapeutic
treatment recommendations. Extensive planes of
The value of the Transographic theory lies in the
orientation are drawn on unniounted casts of the
maxilla and the mandible. Four classes of malocelusion are possible based on these planes of orientation? Class A correct occlusion; Class B: structural
malocclusion; Class C: functional malocclusion;Class
D: structuro-ftmctional malocclusion.
The recommended therapy (usually splint therapy, orthodontic movement, and/or reconstructive
dentistry) is based on what is necessary to realign
these planes of orientation into more favorable relationships.
The primary appeal to cranial orthopedics lies in
the realization that the temporomandibular joint
has an adaptable remodeling capacity that has been
overlooked by- the static relationship concepts traditionally espoused by the other modern schools of
occlusion. The apparent universal lack of enthusiasm
by the dental community for the teachings of cranial
orthopedists can be traced to its reliance on unscienFigure 14. The Transograph articulator.
tific geometrical justification.

40

Occlusion and Occlwal Instruments

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, regardless 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 reference j a w r e l a 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 centromaxillomandibular 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 protrude 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

Becker and Kairer

position, and terminal hinge position added confusion. 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.li4This 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 eIn
. ~an
~ effort to standardize
this and other commonly used terms, the Academy
of Prosthodontics (formerly the Academy of Denture
Prosthetics) has published the Glossay $Prosthodontic
Terms.This glossary is updated periodically and has
five editions since the first in 1956. Every time there
is an update, the definition of centric relation changes.
Avant, in 1971, decried the seven definitions of
centric relation appearing in the 2nd edition of
196flb6 Schluger, Yuodelis, and Page confessed that
the word centric may bc the most controversial
term in dentistry, not only from a semantic point of
view but also due to differences in concept, and they
admit that these serious differences in concept may
never be resolved.@The newest edition (1987) of
the Glossa91 ?f Prosthodontics Term defines centric
relation as A maxillomandibular relationship in
which the condyles articulate with the thinnest avascular portion oftheir respective disks with the complex in the anterior-superior position against the
slopes of the articular eminesces. The authors of
this 5th edition of the Glo.~say$Prosthodontic T m
state This term (CR) is in transition to obsoles~ e n c e . ~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 differently than is commonly done today, but the concept
of mandibular centricity remains constant even

March I993>Volume 2, Number I

though the definition and the tcchniques have evolved

and probably will continue to evolve.

Biological Occlusion
There is ample reason to believe that many successful long-term clinical treatments have bcen accomplished using each of the modern schools of occlusion. Because dentitions can be maintained
successfullywith 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 malpposed 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 traumatism, 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

41

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-FossaOcclusal Scheme
While cusp tips can function effectively against marginal 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 ecccntric 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 Balancing Contacts

No Cross-Tooth Balancing Contacts

Years of observation, trial and error, and scientific

investigation have brought realization that nonwork-

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 nonfunctioning, 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 mok~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 harmonywith 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,
I,ca&Pcbigcr, 1 9 l l , p I66
2. Guerini V: Historical development of dental art. Dent Cosmos
19ni;m
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

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 a m
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:

409
10. Christensen C: Problems of the bite. Dent Cosmos 1905;47:
1184
1 I . Bcnnctt NG: A contribution to the vtudy of t h e 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,
I 48- I 69,268-28z,403-4 18
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
Dent Assoc 1929;16:421
23. Meyer FS: Cast bridgework in functional occlusion.J Am Dent

A~~~~1933;20:1ni
5
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.Rcconstruction 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 Occlusal 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

March 1993, Khme 2, Nuin& I

43

33. Schuyler C: Factors of occlusion applicable to restorative

dentistry..JProsthet Dent 1953:3:781
34. S c h u p r C: The function and importance of iricisal guidance in
oral rehabilitation.J Prosthet Dent 1963;13:1011
3.5. Schuyler C:: Factors contributing to traumatic occlusion. J
Prosthet Dent 196l;ll:70R
36. Damon PE: Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Occlusal Problems. St Louis. MO, CVhfosby, 1974, pp 195-205
37. McCollum BB: A research report. Part I. Fundarneritals

52. GelbH Evaluation ofstaticccntric rclation in the temproman-

involved i n prrscribing rrstorativr dental rcmedies. Part 11.

Articulation ofhuman teeth. Dent ItemsInterest 1939;61:522-

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-

535,641-648,724-736,852-863,942-950
38. Stuart CE: Articulation of human teeth. Dent Items Interest
1939;61:1029-1037,1147-1154
39. Stuart CE: Articulation of human teeth. Dent Items Interest
1941);62:8-17, 106-112
40. Stallard H, Stuart CE: Eliminating tooth guidance in natural
dentiti0ns.J Prosthet Dcnt 1961;l 1:474
41. Lucia VC): Modern Gnatholngic Concepts. St. Louis, MO, CV

Mosby, 1961, p 295

42. 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
43. 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, Univcrsityof California, 1967
14. Guichet NF: Applied pathology: Why and how. Dent Clin
North Am 1969;13:687
45. Guichet NF: Occlusion, a collection of monographs. Anaheim,
Denar Corp, 1970
46. Guichet W Procedures for occlusal trcatment, a teaching
atlas. Anaheim, Denar Corp, 1968, pp 73,94
47. Page H L Centric and hinge-axis. Dent Digest 1951;57:115
48. Page HL The Bennett movement. Dent Digest 1951;57:412
49. Page HLi Transographics and the transograph. Dent Digest
1956;62: 162
50. Preston J D A reassessment of the mandibular transvcrsc
horizontal axis t11eory.JProsthet Dent 1979;41:605
5 I. Gelb H: The temprornandibular joint syndrome: Patient
communication and motivation. Dent ClinNorth Am 1970;14:

287

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

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;1:384386
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'Prosthodonticterms. 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
Prosthet Drnt 1990;64:483
70. WilsonTG Dental Maintenance for Patients MiithPrriodontal
Diseases. Chicago, IL, Quintcssence Publishing Co, 1989, p 26