Technological evolution and clinical applications of jaw motion tracking: A scoping review

Jaw motion tracking (JMT) has been increasingly integrated into dental and digital workflows, yet its technological evolution, application landscape, and evidence base remain fragmented. This scoping review aimed to map JMT technologies and clinical applications, classify studies by clinical intent, and identify methodological and reporting gaps.

Following JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR reporting standards, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for human JMT studies published from January 2000 to December 2025. Studies were classified as measurement or therapeutic according to how JMT data were used. Study characteristics and outcomes were summarized descriptively, with methodological limitations assessed using design-specific JBI tools.

Of 7489 records identified, 384 studies were included (336 measurement, 48 therapeutic). Nine principal commercial system lineages accounted for 245 studies (63.8%) and differed in tracked landmarks, reference frames, outputs, and integration with digital workflows. Optical systems were used in 64.6% of therapeutic studies. Measurement applications predominantly involved TMD assessment (25.9%), biomechanical research (23.2%), and functional and device validation (20.8%), while therapeutic applications concentrated on complex prosthodontic and implant workflows (75.0%). Comparative restorative studies showed generally favorable clinical adjustment outcomes with participant-specific JMT, but virtual restoration findings were inconsistent. Reported kinematic estimates varied substantially across devices and protocols. Common limitations included small samples, heterogeneous outcomes, and inadequate accounting for repeated observations.

JMT remains predominantly a measurement tool but is increasingly applied therapeutically, particularly in prosthodontics and implantology. While workflow-level benefits are suggested, consistent clinical superiority over conventional methods is not established. JMT-derived kinematic estimates remain device- and protocol-dependent. Standardized reporting and stronger comparative designs are needed.

JMT may support selected restorative workflows and may reduce chairside adjustment in some studies. However, consistent clinical superiority has not been demonstrated, and kinematic estimates should be interpreted within the specific device and protocol used rather than generalized across systems.