Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 3, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
A clinical comparison of sagittal condylar inclination and Bennett angle derived from a conventional electronic
Ankita A Nigam1, Jason D Lee2, Sang J Lee3
1Graduate student, Advanced Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Mass.
Statement Of Problem:
The challenges of conventional methods to measure the sagittal condylar inclination and the Bennett angle include patient discomfort and an output of averaged values calculated on the arc of mandibular movement. Programming these average values into a mechanical or mathematically simulated articulator may introduce occlusal errors.
Purpose:
The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the sagittal condylar inclination and Bennett angle measurements derived from a conventional electronic tracking device and an optical tracking device.
Material And Methods:
Fifteen dentate participants with at least 12 occluding units, 25 years old and above, participated in the study. Each participant's mandibular movements were recorded by the 2 systems for different condylar guidance values. A conventional tracking device, the Cadiax Compact 2, and an optical tracking device, the MODJAW, were used for this study. Sagittal condylar inclination was measured at 3 mm and 5 mm using protrusive records and the values of the Bennett angle at 3 mm were measured using excursive records along the path traced by mandibular condyles. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the paired data from the 2 methods.
Results:
A significant difference was found between right (P=.007) and left sagittal condylar inclinations (P=.010) measured at 3 mm with the conventional and optical tracking devices. A significant difference was found between right (P=.015) and left sagittal condylar inclinations (P=.004) measured at 5 mm with the conventional and optical tracking devices. The right and left Bennett angles measured at 3 mm with the conventional and optical tracking devices were statistically different (P=.043 and P=.035 respectively).
Conclusions:
The sagittal condylar inclination and Bennett angle measured at different positions along the path of movement exhibited significant differences. The sagittal condylar inclination and Bennett angle values obtained from the conventional tracking device were generally significantly less than those derived from the optical tracking device.
