Comparing Jaw Tracking and Traditional Methods for Measuring Bite Accuracy in Patients With Teeth

Not Applicable

Not yet recruiting

• Conditions: Jaw Tracking

• Registration Number: NCT07203703
• Lead Sponsor: Omer Abdelmagid

Brief Summary

This study compares two methods used to measure how teeth come together (occlusal contacts) in patients who have natural teeth (dentate patients). The first method uses a modern jaw tracking device, while the second relies on the conventional mounting technique. The goal is to determine which method is more accurate for diagnosing bite alignment and contact points. This is a diagnostic test accuracy study, meaning it focuses on evaluating how well each technique performs in identifying the correct occlusal contacts.

Detailed Description

This study is a diagnostic test accuracy investigation aimed at comparing the precision of two different methods for diagnostic mounting in evaluating occlusal contact points in dentate patients (patients with natural teeth).

The two mounting techniques being compared are:

Jaw Tracking Device-Based Mounting This is a digital approach that utilizes a jaw tracking system to record the patient's mandibular movements accurately. The device captures dynamic jaw positions in real time, allowing for precise simulation of the patient's occlusion on an articulator or in a digital environment.

Conventional Mounting Technique This is the traditional, manual method using mechanical articulators. It typically involves facebow transfer and static bite records to mount the maxillary and mandibular casts in the assumed position. While widely used, this method may be prone to human error and variability.

The primary objective of the study is to assess and compare the accuracy of these two mounting techniques by examining how closely each one replicates the actual occlusal contact points observed intraorally. Occlusal contacts are critical in diagnosing and planning treatments in prosthodontics, orthodontics, and restorative dentistry.

By evaluating these contacts using both methods, the study aims to determine:

Which technique provides a more accurate representation of the patient's true occlusion.

The potential clinical implications of using a jaw tracking device over conventional methods.

Whether digital methods can improve diagnostic reliability and treatment outcomes in daily dental practice.

This study is expected to contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting digital technologies in dentistry, offering insights into their clinical accuracy and potential to replace or supplement traditional techniques.

Study Timeline

• Status Verified: 2025-09
• Study First Submitted: 2025-09-25
• Study First Submitted QC: 2025-09-25
• Last Update Submitted: 2025-09-25
• Study First Posted: 2025-10-02
• Last Update Posted: 2025-10-02
• Study Start: 2025-10-15
• Primary Completion: 2026-01-15
• Study Completion: 2026-02-01

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 18

Inclusion Criteria

Patients aged 18 to 60 years Presence of full natural dentition (excluding third molars) No history of occlusal rehabilitation or major prosthodontic treatment

Exclusion Criteria

Patients with missing teeth (excluding third molars) Patients with bruxism or other parafunctional habits History of orthodontic treatment in the past 2 years Inability to cooperate with diagnostic procedures patient below 18 years old

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Accuracy of occlusal contact point detection as measured by comparing the contact points obtained from each mounting technique (jaw tracking device vs. conventional mounting) with the clinical intraoral occlusal contacts observed using articulating paper	3 months