Classification of articulators

Awni Rihani, D.D.S., M.Sc.*

Ah e 1arge number of articulators and their wide graphs, which are subdivided into four types: (a)
range of adjustments makes classification difficult. hinge type, (b) arbitrary, (c) adjustable, and (d)
However, a review of the literature reveals many instruments designed and used for complete denture
types of classifications that have been proposed. construction.
Gillis’ divided articulators into two classes: (1) the Thomas,” attempting to simplify the classification
adaptable or adjustable type and (2) the average or of articulators, devised a new classification based on
fixed type. Boucher’ classified articulators as nonad- the type of records used. He divided articulators into
justable or adjustable. He also subdivided the adjust- three types: (1) arbitrary (not adjustable), (2) posi-
able type into two groups: (1) a two-dimensional tional (axis and nonaxis types, static records), and (3)
instrument and (2) a three-dimensional instru- functional (axis and nonaxis types, functional
ment. records).
Kingery stated in Anthony’s textbook3 that for These classifications have added confusion and
descriptive purposes articulators may be classified made visualizing the relationships and differences
into two general groups: (1) simple articulators and between the groups difficult. The capability of
(2) adjustable or adaptable articulators. adjustment is the point at which these articulators
Based on the design of articulators, another clas- differ. Therefore, classifications should be based on
sification was devised by Beck.’ He divided articula- adjustment capabilities.
tors into three categories: (1) the suspension instru-
REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICULATORS
ment, (2) the axis instrument, and (3) the tripod
instrument. Articulators have different adjustments, and some
Weinberg’, 6 adopted a different classification have more than others. To make any classification
based on the concept associated with each articula- easy to visualize, and to avoid confusion because of
tor. In his opinion, there are four types of articula- these sophisticated adjustments, the requirements of
tors: (1) arbitrary (Monson spherical theory), (2) an acceptable articulator must be defined. In pros-
positional (Stansbery tripod concept), (3) semiad- thetic dentistry the necessity of registering the
justable (Hanau H concept), and (4) fully adjustable following records is generally accepted: (1) face-bow
(Hanau Kinescope concept, Gysi Trubyte concept, record, (2) centric jaw relation record, (3) protrusive
and McCollum concept). record, (4) lateral records, and (5) intercondylar
Posselt7 classified articulators as plain line, mean distance record.
value, and adjustable. The intercondylar distance record is necessary so
Sharry8 classified articulators as simple, hinge- that the articulator can accept lateral records.”
type, fixed-guides type, and adjustable. When the Gothic arch tracing (needlepoint tracing)
Heartwell and Rahn: emphasizing the role of is used, it can be followed precisely,‘” and an
pantographs in record registration, divided articula- accurate hinge axis transfer can be accomplished.‘”
tors into two classes: (1) instruments that will receive When the intercondylar width can be adjusted to the
and reproduce pantographs and graphic tracings individual patient, the articulator will adjust to more
and (2) instruments that will not receive panto- interocclusal jaw relation records.“’ This variable
intercondylar distance affects the cusp paths. The
greater the intercondylar distance, the more distal
*Colonel Jordanian Army and consultant in Prosthetic Dentistry
for the King Hussein Medical Center in Amman, Jordan. are the working and balancing cusp paths on the
Currently Senior Resident in Removable Prostbodontics. mandibular teeth and the more mesial they are on

344 MARCH 1960 VOLUME 43 NUMBER 3 002%3913/80/030344 + 04$00.40/00 1980 The C. V. Mosby Co.
CLASSIFICATION OF ARTICULATORS

Table I. Classification of articulators

Fully adjustable articulators Semiadjustable articulators Nonadjustable articulators

Can accept all the following five records: Can accept all the following three rec- Can accept one or two of the following three
1. Face-bow record ords: records:
2. Centric jaw relation record 1. Face-bow record 1. Face-bow record
3. Protrusive record 2. Centric jaw relation record 2. Centric jaw relation record
4. Lateral records 3. Protrusive record 3. Protrusive record
5. Intercondylar distance record
Examples: Examples: Examples:
Hanau Kinescope, 1923; McCollum Gna- Snow Acme, 1910; Gysi Adaptable, Gariot, 1805; Evans, 1840; barn door hinge,
thoscope, 1935; Granger Gnatholator, 1950; 1910; Hanau H, 1922; .Wadsworth, 1858; Bonwill, 1858; Walker, 1896; Grit-
Stuarticulator, 1955; Ney-Depietro, 1962; 1924; Gysi Trubyte, 1926; House, man, 1899; Snow, 1906; Gysi Simplex,
Hanau 130-27, 1953; Simulator, 1968; Den- 1927; Dentatus, 1944; Bergstrom Ar- 1912; Monson, 1918; Stansbery, 1929; Phil-
ar D4-A, 1968 con, 1950; Hanau 130-28, 1963; lips Occlusoscope, 1931; Kile Dentograph,
Whip-Mix, 1968 1945; Transograph, 1952; Pankey-Mann,
1955

the maxillary teeth. Conversely, the lesser the inter- duce some of the movements, but also the possibility
condylar distance, the more mesial are the working of weight of the recording apparatus which alters the
and balancing cusp paths on the mandibular teeth normal position and movements of the mandible.“’
and the more distal they are on the maxillary In describing the Case articulator, Gibbs and
teeth.‘” Derda’” reported, “Either pantographic tracings or
Some dentists believe that the ideal articulator lateral interocclusal records can be used to set the
must be adjusted to accommodate immediate Bennett movement on this articulator. However,
Bennett shift and the Fischer angle and that it must because of the complexity and risk of error inherent
accept pantograph tracings. These are points which in these methods, the authors feel that standard
need further discussion before any classification is Bennett movement settings are preferable for most
adopted. patients.”
Gysi’” stated, “Every known means of registering With regard to Fischer angle, Gysi believed (as did
Bennett movement is either so cumbersome or inac- Hanau) that this angle could be omitted from the
curate as to be inefficient; the errors that might articulator because its effect on the occlusal surfaces
result from differences in the inclination of this of the teeth is negligible. With a 3 mm cusp, the
movement are smaller than the unavoidable errors maximum error is approximately 0.1 mm at the
made during impression making and flasking, there- second molar balancing cusp height.“’
fore, we need not trouble ourselves provided the
articulator allows an average movement of 15 NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
degrees Bennett.” Some might say that this state- Articulators which accept the pantograph and
ment is outdated and that the modern pantograph reproduce the immediate Bennet shift and Fischer
(e.g., Denar) can follow this movement and can be angle are preferred by some operators who are
set on the articulator. familiar with them. However, they should not be
Watt” studied the reproducibility of articulator classified in a separate group; this might add more
settings from graphic records. He found that the confusion. Classification should take into considera-
high probabilit); of error in the use of this type of tion how to transfer records made on the patient to
instrument made it unacceptable as a means of the articulator and how to adjust the articulator to
diagnosing occlusal disturbances. accept these records.
Winstanley’” investigated the reproducibility of In treating patients with occlusal disturbances,
articulator settings obtained from graphic records and in making fixed partial dentures, the five records
using the Denar pantograph and Denar articulator. mentioned previously need to be recorded. If the
He found that some of the adjustments were unreli- articulator is designed so that it can be adjusted to
able and concluded that the reproducibility was not accept all five records, it should be classified as a fulb
quite to the extent one would hope for. In fact, it is adjustable articulator regardless of any other charac-
not only the incapability of the articulator to repro- teristics it may have.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 345

Fig. 1. Nonadjustable Gysi Simplex articulator.

Fig. 3. Fully adjustable Hanau 130-21 articulator.

CLASSIFICATION OF ARTICULATORS
USING THE NEW SYSTEM
To demonstrate this simplified classification
system, I have classified some of the old and new
articulators used in dentistry. The classification is
given in Table I.

Nonadjustable articulators
Gariot, 1805; Evans, 1840; barn door hinge,
1858; Bonwill, 1858; Walker, 1896 (has adjustable
condylar guidance, but does not accept the facebow
record); Gritman, 1899; Snow, 1906; Gysi Simplex,
1912 (Fig. 1); Monson, 1918; Stansbery, 1929 (based
on the tripod theory, where there is no condylar
control); Philips Occlusoscope, 1931 (based on the
tripod theory also, and does not accept the face-bow
record); Kile Dentograph, 1945 (based on the prin-
Fig. 2. Semiadjustable Dentatus articulator. ciple of the tripod); Transograph, 1952 (contains two
face-bows, upper and lower, connected to each other;
In complete denture construction, it is acceptable there is no condylar guidance); and Pankey-Mann,
to register three records. They are (1) the facebow, 1955 (based on the spherical theory using special
(2) the centric jaw relation, and (3) the protrusive face-bow to mount the mandibular cast).
record.
All articulators which are designed so that they
Semiadjustable articulators
can be adjusted to accept these three records are Snow Acme, 1910; Gysi Adaptable, 1910 (does not
classified as semiadjustable articulators. If the articula- accept lateral records); Hanau H, 1922, Wadsworth,
tor is not designed to be adjusted to accept each of 1924; Gysi Trubyte, 1926 (does not accept the
these three records, it should be classified as a intercondylar distance record); House, 1927 (does
nonadjustable articulator, whatever other characteris- not accept the intercondylar distance record, satisfies
tics it has. Bonwill principles); Dentatus, 1944 (Fig. 2); Berg-

MARCH 1980 VOLUME 43 NUMBER 3

strom Arcon, 1950; Hanau 130-28, 1963; and Whip- 6. Weinberg, L. A.: An evaluation of basic articulators and
their concepts. Part III. J PROSTHETDENT 13:873, 1963.
Mix, 1968.
7. Posselt, U.: Physiology of Occlusion, ed 2. Oxford, 1968,
Fully adjustable articulators Blackwell Scientific Publications, p 108.
8. Sharry, J. J.: Complete Denture Prosthodontics, ed 3. New
Hanau Kinescope, 1923; McCollum Gnatho- York, 1974, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., p 222.
scope, 1935; Granger Gnatholator, 1950; Stuartartic- 9. Heartwell, Cl. M., and Rahn, A. 0.: Syllabus of Complete
ulator, 1955; Ney-Depietro, 1962; Hanau 130-2 1, Dentures, ed 2. Philadelphia, 1974, Lea 8r Febiger, Publish-
ers, p 47.
1963 (Fig. 3); Simulator, 1968; and Denar D4-A,
10. Thomas, C. J.: A classification of articulators. J PROSTHET
1968. DENT 30:11, 1973.
11. International Prosthodontics Workshop on Complete Den-
SUMMARY ture Occlusion. The University of Michigan, 1973, p 100.
12. Sharry, J. J.: Complete Denture Prosthodontics, ed 3. New
A simple classification in familiar terms with
York, 1974, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.. p 224.
definite, clear characteristics can be adopted. This
13. Weinberg, L. A.: An evaluation of basic articulators and
classification system is based on the number of their concepts. Part I. J PROSTF~ET DENT 13:634, 1963.
records used and the adjustments necessary for the 14. Heartwell, C. M., and Rahn, A. 0.: Syllabus of Complete
articulator to accept these records. Dentures, ed 2. Philadelphia, 1974, Lea and Febiger,
The classification divides the articulators into Publishers, p 77.
15. Heartwell, C. M., and Rahn, A. 0.: Syllabus of Complete
nonadjustable, semiadjustable, and fully adjustable
Dentures, ed 2. Philadelphia, 1974, Lea & Febiger, Publish-
articulators (Table I). ers, p 202.
16. Gysi, A.: Practical application of research results in denture
I would like to thank Dr. Francis W. Shaffer, Chairman,
construction. J .4m Dent Assoc 16:199, 1929.
Department of Removable Prosthodontics, and Dr. Kenneth A.
17. Watt, D. M.: A study of the reproducibility of articulator
Turner, Associate Professor, Department of Crown and Bridge,
settings from graphic records of mandibular movement.
Emory University School of Dentistry, for their advice and
Dent Pratt Dent Ret 19:119, 1968.
encouragement.
18. Winstanley, R. B.: Observations on the use of the Denar
REFERENCES pantograph and articulator. J PROSTHET DENT 38:660,
1977.
1. Gillis, R. R.: .4rticulator development and the importance of
19. Boucher, C. 0.: Accuracy in measuring functional dimen-
observing the condyle paths in full denture prosthesis. J Am
sions and relations in oral prosthesis by Charles E. Stuart.
Dent Assoc 13:3, 1926.
J PROSTHET DENT 9:237, 1959.
2. Boucher, C. 0.: Methods of recording functional movements
20 Gibbs, C. H., and Derda, H. J.: A new articulator empha-
of full denture bases in three dimensions. J Dent Res 14:39,
sizing centric occlusion and the anterior determinants,
1934.
J PROSTHET DENT 37:382, 1977.
3. Anthony, L. P.: The American Text Book of Prosthetic
Dentistry, ed 7. Philadelphia, 1942, Lea & Febiger, Publish- Re,tmnt requeststo:
ers, p 233. DR. AWNI RIHANI
4. Beck, H. 0.: Choosing the articulator. J Am Dent Assoc P. 0. Box 3036
64:468, 1962. AMMAN, JORDAN
5. Weinberg, L. A.: An evaluation of basic articulators and
their concepts. Part II. J PRCSTHETDENT 13:645, 1963.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 347