Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Variables influencing the device-dependent approaches in digitally analysing jaw movement—a systematic review

  • Review
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To explore the digitisation of jaw movement trajectories through devices and discuss the physiological factors and device-dependent variables with their subsequent effects on the jaw movement analyses.

Methods

Based on predefined eligibility criteria, the search was conducted following PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines on MEDLINE, EBSCO Host, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases in 2022 by 2 reviewers. Articles then underwent Cochrane GRADE approach and JBI critical appraisal for certainty of evidence and bias evaluation.

Results

Thirty articles were included following eligibility screening. Both in vitro experiments (20%) and in vivo (80%) devices ranging from electronic axiography, electromyography, optoelectronic and ultrasonic, oral or extra-oral tracking, photogrammetry, sirognathography, digital pressure sensors, electrognathography, and computerised medical-image tracing were documented. 53.53% of the studies were rated below “moderate” certainty of evidence. Critical appraisal showed 80% case–control investigations failed to address confounding variables while 90% of the included non-randomised experimental studies failed to establish control reference.

Conclusion

Mandibular and condylar growth, kinematic dysfunction of the neuromuscular system, shortened dental arches, previous orthodontic treatment, variations in habitual head posture, temporomandibular joint disorders, fricative phonetics, and to a limited extent parafunctional habits and unbalanced occlusal contact were identified confounding variables that shaped jaw movement trajectories but were not highly dependent on age, gender, or diet. Realistic variations in device accuracy were found between 50 and 330 µm across the digital systems with very low interrater reliability for motion tracing from photographs. Forensic and in vitro simulation devices could not accurately recreate variations in jaw motion and muscle contractions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data used to synthesise the results of this systematic review can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Jokstad A (2017) Computer-assisted technologies used in oral rehabilitation and the clinical documentation of alleged advantages–a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 44:261–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Farook TH, Jamayet N, bin, Asif JA, et al (2021) Development and virtual validation of a novel digital workflow to rehabilitate palatal defects by using smartphone-integrated stereophotogrammetry (SPINS). Sci Rep 11:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Farook TH, Rashid F, Jamayet NB, Abdullah JY, Dudley J, Alam MK (2022) A virtual analysis of the precision and accuracy of 3-dimensional ear casts generated from smartphone camera images. J Prosthet Dent 128(4):830–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beh YH, Farook TH, Bin JN et al (2020) Evaluation of the differences between conventional and digitally developed models used for prosthetic rehabilitation in a case of untreated palatal cleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 58:386–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620950074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rousseau M, Retrouvey J-M (2022) Machine learning in orthodontics: automated facial analysis of vertical dimension for increased precision and efficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 161:445–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Khanagar SB, Al-ehaideb A, Maganur PC et al (2021) Developments, application, and performance of artificial intelligence in dentistry–a systematic review. J Dent Sci 16:508–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tian SK, Dai N, Li LL et al (2020) Three-dimensional mandibular motion trajectory-tracking system based on BP neural network. Math Biosci Eng 17:5709–5726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carossa M, Cavagnetto D, Ceruti P et al (2020) Individual mandibular movement registration and reproduction using an optoeletronic jaw movement analyzer and a dedicated robot: a dental technique. BMC Oral Health 20:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ommerborn MA, Giraki M, Schneider C, Schaefer R, Gotter A, Franz M, Raab WH (2005) A new analyzing method for quantification of abrasion on the Bruxcore device for sleep bruxism diagnosis. J Orofac Pain 19(3)

  10. Bianchini EMG, Paiva G, de Andrade CRF (2008) Mandibular movement patterns during speech in subjects with temporomandibular disorders and in asymptomatic individuals. J Craniomandibular Practice 26:50–58

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mickiewicz W, Sawicki J, Biedka A (2010) Automatic reconstruction of the human temporomandibular joint axis movement using optoelectronic sensors. In: 2010 15th international conference on methods and models in automation and robotics, MMAR 2010. pp 160–163

  12. Shu J, Feng Y, Zheng T et al (2021) Temporomandibular condylar articulation and finite helical axis determination using a motion tracking system. Med Eng Phys 94:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2021.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hirsch C, John MT, Lautenschläger C, List T (2006) Mandibular jaw movement capacity in 10–17-yr-old children and adolescents: normative values and the influence of gender, age, and temporomandibular disorders. Eur J Oral Sci 114:465–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Farook TH, Jamayet NB, Abdullah JY, Alam MK (2021) Machine learning and intelligent diagnostics in dental and orofacial pain management: A systematic review. Pain Res Manag 24:2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6659133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chierici G, Lawson L (1973) Clinical speech considerations in prosthodontics: perspectives of the prosthodontist and speech pathologist. J Prosthet Dent 29:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kurbad A (2018) Three-dimensional registration of real jaw motion tracking data and its therapeutic consequences Die Registrierung realer Kieferbewegungen in 3-D und ihre therapeutische Konsequenz. Int J Comput Dent 21:57–70

    Google Scholar 

  17. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S et al (2021) PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Farook TH, Radford J, Alam MK, Jamayet NB (2020) Plagiarism in dentistry - a systematic review. Br Dent J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-2026-4

  20. Institute JB Critical Appraisal Tools - Joanna Briggs Institute. https://joannabriggs.org/ebp/critical_appraisal_tools. Accessed 23 Apr 2020

  21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 64:380–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Abraham AK, Sivaramakrishnan V, Swapna N, Manohar N (2021) Image-based assessment of jaw parameters and jaw kinematics for articulatory simulation: preliminary results. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH. pp 431–435

  23. Fuentes R, Arias A, Lezcano MF, Saravia D, Kuramochi G, Dias FJ (2017) Systematic standardized and individualized assessment of masticatory cycles using electromagnetic 3D articulography and computer scripts. Biomed Res Int 18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7134389

  24. Celebi N, Rohner EC, Gateno J et al (2011) Development of a mandibular motion simulator for total joint replacement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:66–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Raabe D, Alemzadeh K, Harrison AJL, Ireland AJ (2009) The chewing robot: a new biologically-inspired way to evaluate dental restorative materials. In: 2009 annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE, pp 6050–6053

  26. Whalen DH, Iskarous K, Tiede MK, Ostry DJ, Lehnert-LeHouillier H, Vatikiotis-Bateson E, Hailey DS (2005) The Haskins optically corrected ultrasound system (HOCUS). J Speech Lang Hear Res 48(3):543–553. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/037)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hayashi T, Saitoh A, Ishioka K, Miyakawa M (1994) A computerized system for analyzing occlusal relations during mandibular movements. Int J Prosthodont 7(2):108–114

    Google Scholar 

  28. O’Hare E, Cogan JA, Dillon F et al (2021) An intraoral non-occlusal MEMS sensor for bruxism detection. IEEE Sens J 22:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lucena CV, Lacerda M, Caldas R et al (2018) Mastication evaluation with unsupervised learning: using an inertial sensor-based system. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med 6:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Feng Y, Max L (2014) Accuracy and precision of a custom camera-based system for 2-D and 3-D motion tracking during speech and nonspeech motor tasks. J Speech Lang Hear Res 57:426–438. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-13-0007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Missaka R, Adachi LK, Tamaki R et al (2008) Development of an experimental optoelectronic device to study the amplitude of mandibular movements. Braz Oral Res 22:151–157. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242008000200010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kerstein RB (2004) Combining technologies: a computerized occlusal analysis system synchronized with a computerized electromyography system. J Craniomandibular Practice 22:96–109

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kerstein RB, Wright NR (1991) Electromyographic and computer analyses of patients suffering from chronic myofascial pain-dysfunction syndrome: before and after treatment with immediate complete anterior guidance development. J Prosthet Dent 66:677–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wilding RJC, Lewin A (1991) A computer analysis of normal human masticatory movements recorded with a sirognathograph. Arch Oral Biol 36:65–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mack PJ (1989) A computer analysis of condylar movement as determined by cuspal guidances. J Prosthet Dent 61:628–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Li W, Chen H, Wang Y et al (2022) Digital determination and recording of edentulous maxillomandibular relationship using a jaw movement tracking system. J Prosthodont 31(8):663–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13529

  37. Alemzadeh K, Jones SB, Davies M, West N (2020) Development of a chewing robot with built-in humanoid jaws to simulate mastication to quantify robotic agents release from chewing gums compared to human participants. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 68:492–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zoss G, Beeler T, Gross M, Bradley D (2019) Accurate markerless jaw tracking for facial performance capture. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gallo LM, Fankhauser N, Gonzalez YM et al (2018) Jaw closing movement and sex differences in temporomandibular joint energy densities. J Oral Rehabil 45:97–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gupta S, Tarannum F, Gupta NK et al (2017) Effect of head posture on tooth contacts in dentate and complete denture wearers using computerized occlusal analysis system. The J Indian Prosthodont Soc 17:250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hue O (2016) The sagittal condylar paths in edentulous patients: analysis with computerized axiography. Int J Prosthodont 29:11–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gawriołek K, Gawriołek M, Komosa M et al (2015) Kinematic modeling of normal voluntary mandibular opening and closing velocity-initial study. J Prosthodont 24:279–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Koos B, Godt A, Schille C, Göz G (2010) Precision of an instrumentation-based method of analyzing occlusion and its resulting distribution of forces in the dental arch. J Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 71:403–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Matsui Y, Ohno K, Michi K et al (1996) A computerized method for evaluating balance of occlusal load. J Oral Rehabil 23:530–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Baqaien MA, Barra J, Muessig D (2009) Computerized axiographic evaluation of the changes in sagittal condylar path inclination with dental and physical development. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135:88–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Röhrle O, Waddell JN, Foster KD et al (2009) Using a motion-capture system to record dynamic articulation for application in CAD/CAM software. J Prosthodon: Implant, Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry 18:703–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. He S, Kau CH, Liao L, Kinderknecht K, Ow A, Abou Saleh T (2016) The use of a dynamic real-time jaw tracking device and cone beam computed tomography simulation. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery 6(1):113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Soboļeva U, Lauriņa L, Slaidiņa A (2005) Jaw tracking devices—historical review of methods development. Part II Stomatologija 7:72–76

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lee H-J, Shim J-S, Moon H-S, Kim J-E (2021) Alteration of the occlusal vertical dimension for prosthetic restoration using a target tracking system. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 11:. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136196

  50. Goob J, Erdelt K, Schweiger J et al (2020) Reproducibility of a magnet-based jaw motion analysis system. Int J Comput Dent 23:39–48

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kwon JH, Im S, Chang M et al (2019) A digital approach to dynamic jaw tracking using a target tracking system and a structured-light three-dimensional scanner. J Prosthodont Res 63:115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2018.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Chen S-K, Chen Y-J, Yao C-CJ, Chang H-F (2004) Enhanced speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted digital cephalometric analysis system. Angle Orthod 74:501–507

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lepidi L, Galli M, Mastrangelo F et al (2021) Virtual articulators and virtual mounting procedures: where do we stand? J Prosthodont 30:24–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bianchi J, Ruellas A, Prieto JC, et al (2021) Decision support systems in temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis: a review of data science and artificial intelligence applications. In: Seminars in orthodontics. Elsevier, pp 78–86

  55. Choi YJ, Lee K-J (2021) Possibilities of artificial intelligence use in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning: image recognition and three-dimensional VTO. In: Seminars in orthodontics. Elsevier, pp 121–129

Download references

Acknowledgements

THF is a recipient of the University of Adelaide Research Scholarship. We thank Liaison Librarian, Ms Vikki Langton of the University of Adelaide for assisting in development of search strategies.

Funding

This research was supported by the University of Adelaide Kwok Paul Lee Bequest (75131603).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia

    Taseef Hasan Farook & James Dudley

  2. School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kota Bharu, 16150, Malaysia

    Farah Rashid

  3. College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia

    Mohammad Khursheed Alam

Authors
  1. Taseef Hasan Farook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farah Rashid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Khursheed Alam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James Dudley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualisation of idea: THF, JD; methodological design and implementation: THF, FR; data synthesis: THF, FR; data interpretation: THF, FR, MKA, JD; expert feedback and revision: MKA, JD; supervision: JD; final approval for submission: MKA, JD.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taseef Hasan Farook.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This systematic review was conducted as a part of the project titled “The use of electronic and computerised tracking to determine trends in maxillomandibular trajectory, relation and phono-articulation”. The project was reviewed and approved by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval No H-2022–185).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farook, T.H., Rashid, F., Alam, M.K. et al. Variables influencing the device-dependent approaches in digitally analysing jaw movement—a systematic review. Clin Oral Invest 27, 489–504 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04835-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04835-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation