Comparison of the Accuracy of an Ultrasonic-based Jaw Tracking Device with Conventional Electronic Tracking Device

Overview

Journal J Adv Prosthodont

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2025 Mar 10

PMID 40061026

Authors

Xinyi Gu

Tingzi Hu

Zidan Zhang

Fuming He

Jiejun Shi

Haiping Yang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements.

Materials And Methods: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05.

Results: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems ( > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX 4 system ( < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX 4 system ( < .05).

Conclusion: Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

References

Lepidi L, Galli M, Mastrangelo F, Venezia P, Joda T, Wang H . Virtual Articulators and Virtual Mounting Procedures: Where Do We Stand?. J Prosthodont. 2020; 30(1):24-35. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13240. View

Reicheneder C, Gedrange T, Baumert U, Faltermeier A, Proff P . Variations in the inclination of the condylar path in children and adults. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79(5):958-63. DOI: 10.2319/081108-425.1. View

Cimic S, Kraljevic Simunkovic S, Catic A . The relationship between Angle type of occlusion and recorded Bennett angle values. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115(6):729-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.005. View

Petre A, Drafta S, Stefanescu C, Oancea L . Virtual facebow technique using standardized background images. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 121(5):724-728. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.008. View

Krenkel C, Anthofer R, Lixl G . [Sagittal splitting with screw fixation in patients with mesial bite wearing dentures--planning surgery and prosthetic design]. Z Stomatol. 1989; 86(1):37-48. View

Feng Y, Zhan L, Sun X, Li J, Liu W . A fully digital workflow to register maxillomandibular relation using a jaw motion tracer for fixed prosthetic rehabilitation: A technical report. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023; 35(7):1068-1076. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13058. View

Solaberrieta E, Garmendia A, Minguez R, Brizuela A, Pradies G . Virtual facebow technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114(6):751-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.012. View

Perez-Giugovaz M, Park S, Revilla-Leon M . 3D Virtual Patient Representation for Guiding a Maxillary Overdenture Fabrication: A Dental Technique. J Prosthodont. 2021; 30(7):636-641. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13374. View

Yuan Y, Liu Q, Yang S, He W . Four-Dimensional Superimposition Techniques to Compose Dental Dynamic Virtual Patients: A Systematic Review. J Funct Biomater. 2023; 14(1). PMC: 9861356. DOI: 10.3390/jfb14010033. View

10.

Revilla-Leon M, Kois D, Zeitler J, Att W, Kois J . An overview of the digital occlusion technologies: Intraoral scanners, jaw tracking systems, and computerized occlusal analysis devices. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023; 35(5):735-744. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13044. View

11.

Baqaien M, Al-Salti F, Muessig D . Changes in condylar path inclination during maximum protrusion between the ages of 6 and 12 years. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34(1):27-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01690.x. View

12.

Kijak E, Lietz-Kijak D, Fraczak B, Sliwinski Z, Margielewicz J . Assessment of the TMJ Dysfunction Using the Computerized Facebow Analysis of Selected Parameters. Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015:508069. PMC: 4442268. DOI: 10.1155/2015/508069. View

13.

She W, Xie J, Jiao T . [Accuracy evaluation of recording maxillomandibular relation with the mandibular kinesiography]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2024; 32(5):497-500. View

14.

Avelino M, Neves B, Ribeiro A, Carreiro A, Costa R, Moraes S . Virtual facebow techniques: A scoping review. J Prosthet Dent. 2023; . DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.032. View

15.

Bernhardt O, Kuppers N, Rosin M, Meyer G . Comparative tests of arbitrary and kinematic transverse horizontal axis recordings of mandibular movements. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89(2):175-9. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.10. View

16.

Li J, Sommer C, Wang H, Lepidi L, Joda T, Mendonca G . Creating a virtual patient for completely edentulous computer-aided implant surgery: A dental technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 125(4):564-568. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.02.026. View

17.

Celar A, Tamaki K . Accuracy of recording horizontal condylar inclination and Bennett angle with the Cadiax compact. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29(11):1076-81. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00951.x. View

18.

Mazzetto Dds MScDs PhD M, Anacleto Dds MScDs M, Rodrigues Dds MScDs C, Braganca Dds R, Paiva Dds G, Valencise Magri Dds MScDs L . Comparison of mandibular movements in TMD by means of a 3D ultrasonic system and digital caliper rule. Cranio. 2016; 35(1):46-51. DOI: 10.1080/08869634.2016.1149928. View

19.

Goldstein G, Goodacre C . Selecting a Virtual Articulator: An Analysis of the Factors Available with Mechanical Articulators and their Potential Need for Inclusion with Virtual Articulators. J Prosthodont. 2022; 32(1):10-17. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13517. View

20.

Rihani A . Classification of articulators. J Prosthet Dent. 1980; 43(3):344-7. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(80)90414-x. View