DENTAL INSTRUMENTATION

The History of Articulators: A Critical

History of Articulators Based on
“Geometric” Theories of Mandibular
Movement. Part IV: Needles, Wadsworth,
and a Look at Some Who Followed
Edgar N. Starcke, DDS

A S WAS discussed in Part III of this series, John

Needles was an early and enthusiastic propo-
nent of the Monson “spherical” theory. In August
chew-in” method of recording jaw relations. His
second articulator was an adjustable condylar guide
instrument that incorporated his unique incisal
1921, Needles read a paper before the National guide (gothic arch) control mechanism. His “chew-
Society of Denture Prosthetists in Milwaukee, the in” technique was used to adjust the articulator
purpose of which was “to demonstrate the correct- controls (Fig 1).4
ness of the theory that the teeth in normal occlu- Having reviewed these events, it is interesting to
sion lie upon the surface of a sphere as advocated by note that Needles was apparently one to keep all of
George S. Monson or more generally that the two his bases covered. In 1957, Needles patented what
sides lie upon the surface of concentric spheres.”1 he described as an “improved form” of his 1921
But even by this time, Needles was beginning to articulator5 because, as he stated, “a device of this
character . . . found extensive use in the dental pro-
question Monson’s theory in its purist form. “If this
fession.” Needles claimed that this articulator (Fig
theory is true,” Needles said, “there is a transverse
2) would be “more easily susceptible of use by a
axis through the head of the condyles about which
dentist or dental assistant who lacks the high de-
the opening and closing motion takes place.”1 Nee-
gree of skill which has been required heretofore for
dles’ first articulator embodied this idea—that is, a the successful use of previous articulators.”5
universal joint (“balancer”) design with an incisal It was also in 1921 that Rudolph L Hanau
guidance mechanism.2 stepped into the ring and struck a blow for “back to
By the following year, Needles’ beliefs had basics.” In a paper read before the National Society
changed significantly. In August 1922, he read a of Denture Prosthetists in Milwaukee, Hanau asked
second paper before the National Society of Den-
ture Prosthetists in Los Angeles. He prefaced his
remarks with the statement that “any theory must
be subject to constant change and modification,
disregarding those portions which are shown to be
untrue and incorporating those facts which the
future develops.” Offering his present views on
some of the facts and theories of mandibular move-
ment, Needles announced that “further study and
experiments have convinced me that some of my
former views are untenable.”3 Presumably, the only
concept relating to the Monson theory that Needles
retained in practice was the spherically contoured
occlusion rims that he created for the “Needles

Figure 1. John Needles’ second articulator, 1922 (not

Copyright © 2003 by The American College of Prosthodontists patented). Needles believed that this instrument pro-
1059-941X/03/1201-0011$30.00/0 vided perfect adaptation with correct adjustment of the
doi:10.1053/jpro.2003.10 condylar slopes. (Reprinted from Nichols, p 165.4)

Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol 12, No 1 (March), 2003: pp 51-62 51

52
Figure 2. Needles’ improved and simplified version of
his 1921 articulator. Needles claimed that his first model
was very successful but difficult to use. This was an
attempt to provide a simpler model for the less-skilled
dentist. (Reprinted from the 1957 US Patent.5)
what he considered the “capital” question: “Is it
permissible to use a non-adjustable mechanism
based on averages, or should we have an adjustable
apparatus to comply with the anatomical conditions
and with the technical selections?”6 He introduced
his Hanau “model C” articulator (Fig 3) and pre-
sented his recent investigations into mandibular
movement, explaining that his conclusions were
Figure 3. The Hanau model “C” articulator. This was Hanau’s third design and the only one offered commercially. It
was never patented. (Reprinted from a commercial advertisement in Dental Summary 1921;41:547.)
Figure 4. Dayton Campbell’s incisal guide attachment
applied to the Gysi Simplex articulator. This modified the
Simplex with bilateral incisal angles of 45 degrees and a
horizontal protrusive path. (Reprinted from Campbell, p
206.10)
“from the viewpoint of dental engineering.” * Hanau
believed that the Hall and Monson theories were
misinterpretations of masticatory movements as
applied to articulators and said that he had come to
the “final conclusion” that it was absolutely neces-
sary to adjust an articulator to comply with “given
individual requirements.”6 Hanau’s presentation
was well received, but was certainly no knockout
punch. His articulator, although based on generally
*The “model C” was the third version of this articulator and
was the only one offered for sale to the profession. Hanau
applied for a patent on the first version, the “model A” articu-
lator, in February 1921. The patent was not issued until June
1926.
 53

ied many other adjustment features. Hanau recom-

Figure 5. Dayton Campbell’s “barn door hinge” articulator.
This device could be the origin of the association of barn door
hinges with his name. (Reprinted from Campbell, p 223.11)
accepted theory, proved to be impractical because it
was functionally complicated and cumbersome to
handle. Like Needles’ first articulator, it had a type
of “universal joint” mechanism, but it also embod-
mended a technique that used a wax “check-bite”
procedure and orientation of the casts with the
Snow facebow. Obviously, by this time, neither the
facebow nor the adjusting articulator controls with
“check bites” were exactly new ideas. So, although
Hanau’s concepts had merit, his “model C” articu-
lator was not accepted by the profession.
A review of geometric theories of mandibular
movement would not be complete without noting
Dayton Dunbar Campbell’s viewpoint on the sub-
ject. During this period, Campbell attempted to sell
the profession on the “floating condyle” theory.
Campbell argued that for an articulator to accu-
rately reproduce mandibular movements, a cusp
height of 45 degrees should be used as the guidance
control, and condylar guidance should be ignored.7
Apparently, Campbell adopted a component of Ru-
pert Hall’s conical theory—the idea that the max-

Figure 6. (A) Frank Wadsworth’s first articulator, 1919. The unique feature is the incisal guide table. The adjustable
lateral wings (19 and 20) have 3 surfaces (plane, concave, and convex) on which the incisal pin can traverse. (Reprinted
from the 1919 US patent.6) (B) A detail of the condylar mechanism. The condylar guides are fixed at about 45 degrees,
and movement of condylar pins is restricted by springs. The only possible adjustment of the “temporal mandibular
articulation” device is to change the position of the condylar pins with the thumbscrew. Incidentally, this model did not
feature the 3 surface incisal guide table. (From the collection of Waterpik Technologies, Ft. Collins, CO.)
54

Figure 7. (A) The Wadsworth articulator, c. 1924 (not patented). Wadsworth’s best-known model, this featured the
new “centering plate” for projecting the occlusal curves, an intercondylar distance-adjustment mechanism, and a curved
condylar path. (Reprinted from Thomson, p 113.16) (B, C, D, and E) A series of drawings depicting the procedure for
determining the “Wadsworth triangle” and projecting the basic or compensating curve using dividers. (B) Measuring
the length of the mandible from the median incisor point to the condylar rod. (C and D) Determining the apex of the
Wadsworth triangle by scribing arcs from the medial incisor point and from the condyle. (E) Projecting the basic or
compensating curve on the occlusion rims. (Reprinted from Thomson, p 113.16)

illary first bicuspid (at 45 degrees) would produce
the greatest efficiency in mastication8 In 1919,
Campbell patented a device9 for modifying certain
popular contemporary articulators with a fixed in-
cisal guide of 45 degrees; Figure 4 shows this device
applied to a Gysi Simplex articulator.
The device was also used to modify the Kerr
articulator and the Snow “Acme” articulator.
Campbell rejected Monson and Hall’s ideas that
the mandible moved around a fixed rotation center,
instead holding that multiple centers exist. He
claimed that satisfactory dentures could be easily
made with either of their articulators because of
the universal joint features.10 To demonstrate the
simplicity with which the mechanism of the univer-
sal joint can be applied, Campbell fabricated an
articulator (after Hall’s “Automatic Anatomic” de-
sign) using 2 barn door hinges, the bottoms of two
curing flasks, a cabinet door hinge for the incisal
guide table,and a bolt for the incisal pin (Fig 5).
He constructed a set of complete dentures using
this device, hen mounted the completed den-

tures on both the Hall and Monson articulators.
“The masticatory movements were the same,” he
said, “since these movements are pre-determined
by the cusps.”11 Could this paper, presented to the
Ohio State Dental Society in December 1920, ex-
plain why Dayton Dunbar Campbell’s name is fre-
quently associated with the “barn door hinge”?
The Contributions of
Frank M. Wadsworth
Figure 6A shows patent drawings for Frank Wads-
worth’s first effort in articulator design.12 During
this period, Wadsworth had expressed little con-
cern over the emerging “geometric” theory contro-
versy, regarding incisal control as the primary fac-
tor in reproducing mandibular movement in an
articulator. In the patent letter, he explained that
the main object of his invention was “to provide in
a dental device means for establishing the cusp
planes [inclines] in partial dentures.”12 His other
objectives were to provide the means to reproduce
the action in and adjust the parts of “the device
representing the temporal mandibular articula-
tion.”12 This claim is surprising, considering that
his articulator is a fixed condylar guide design (Fig
6B). Wadsworth’s unique incisal guide mechanism
is noteworthy because he designed the lateral guide
plates with 3 distinct surface contour variations:
plane line, concave, and convex.
Although a proponent of Monson’s “spherical”
theory, Frank Wadsworth soon discovered the fal-
Figure 8. Using dividers with a knife tip for trimming
occlusion rims. (Reprinted from Nichols, p 173.4)
55
Figure 9. Rupert Hall’s illustration of the Monson-
Wadsworth curve (a-a) and a “practical” curve (b-b) ap-
plied to mounted edentulous casts, demonstrating why he
believed that the Monson-Wadsworth curve was neither
basic nor practical. Did Hall consider the curve that was
projected in his conical theory to be practical? (Reprinted
from Hall, p 26.8)
lacy of designing an articulator based on bilateral
symmetry of the condyles. Wadsworth’s second and
third articulators (c. 1921 and 1924) were very
similar in design and embodied his ideas for mod-
ifying the Monson theory to reflect the individual
requirements of the patient. Both were nonarcon
adjustable condylar guide instruments (Fig 7A). The
condyle mechanism generally resembled the con-
temporary Hanau “model H” except for a slightly
curved condylar path. Wadsworth also included the
adjustable intercondylar distance feature in these
articulators. Like his first articulator, his second
articulator had an incisal guide assembly with a
fixed horizontal protrusive path, but simplified by
lateral guide plates with only 1 (plane line) surface.
In addition, Wadsworth introduced the concept of
the “third point of reference” by adapting his “T-
attachment” to the Snow facebow when mounting
the casts in the articulator.13 † The vertical position
of the casts was determined by applying the “T-
attachment” to the “naso-optic-condylar” triangle.
The intercondylar distance was determined when
the facebow was adjusted to the patient by measur-
ing the distance between the condylar rods and
subtracting ½ inch from each side.14
Wadsworth’s innovation for the purpose of ac-
commodating condylar asymmetry was to apply
what he called the “centering plate” to project
†Wadsworth later designed his own facebow based on
George Snow’s principles.
56

the mandible is determined with the dividers by

measuring the distance from the condyle to the
median incisor point on the occlusion rims. This
then becomes the base of the triangle on that side.
With this fixed length, 1 divider tip is placed on the
condyle rod, and the other tip is made to scribe an
arc on the centering plate. The dividers are then
rotated from the median incisor point, with the
other point likewise scribing an arc on the centering
plate. The point of intersection is the apex of the
Wadsworth triangle and the center of a sphere. By
placing 1 point of the dividers at this center, the
other point can be used to scribe the “basic” or
“compensating ” curve on the lower occlusion rim
from the median incisor point extending posteriorly
toward the condyle. Figure 8 illustrates how the
special dividers are used to trim the lower occlusion
rim.15 Wadsworth further refined the occlusal curve
and thereby adjusted the inclination of the condylar
guides by applying the functionally generated path

Figure 10. The Ralph articulator, 1930. After the verti-

cal position of the maxillary rim is initially determined
with a facebow (18), the gauge (58) is moved down
vertically in a 4-inch arc to locate the horizontal position
of the mesial incisal point (24). The carving tool (77) is
suspended from the gauge at (79), whereby the blade
(81) is used for carving the curve of the occlusion rims.
(Reprinted from the 1930 US Patent.19)

occlusal curves (Fig 7A). Monson, of course, was the

first to project the occlusal curve (also known as
“Christensen’s curve”) from a common center of a
sphere by means of dividers. But Wadsworth was
the first to establish an individual center for each
condyle using the centering plate and dividers.14
Originally, the centering plate was round and had
recessed areas on both sides. The recesses were
filled flush with modeling compound for determin-
ing the apex of Wadsworth’s variable equilateral
triangle.15
The procedure for applying the centering plate
to determine the curve of occlusion is diagrammat-
ically illustrated in Hamish Thomson’s text16 (Fig Figure 11. The Chott articulator, 1935. The maxillary
7B, C, D, and E). Wadsworth himself15 described and mandibular rims are shaped to conform to arcs
representing the “curve of Spee.” The templates are
the Wadsworth triangle as essentially the Bonwill supported by 3 adjustable spring-loaded rods for placing
triangle but with the size determined according to the rims in the proper position. (Reprinted from the 1935
the requirements of each individual. The length of US patent.20)
 57

Figure 12. The Fournet “Dual Check” articulator, 1942. The (A) maxillary and (B) mandibular spherical templates are
used for determining the curve of the occlusion rims, as a guide for setting the teeth and for “grinding in” the occlusion
to predetermined arcs. (From the collection of the University of Texas at Houston Dental Branch.)

method described by A.H. Paterson of Baltimore in
the 1920s.17 This technique was later modified and
popularized by F.S. Meyer.18
Frank Wadsworth’s untimely death in April 1925
brought an end to a promising career and to his
indefatigable efforts in the development of a system
for complete denture construction. Without his ad-
vocacy, the Wadsworth system could not have been
sustained, even with the support and financial back-
ing of the S.S. White Company.
By 1930, Rupert Hall, who had abandoned his
conical theory for his tripod concept and the 3-di-
mensional articulator, had become an outspoken
critic of Wadsworth. “Neither Monson’s nor Wads-
worth’s curves,” he stated, “are basic, as projected,
because it is not possible to apply these curves in all
cases . . . the relation of the ridges to these curves
does not permit placement of the teeth . . . .”8 Hall
illustrated this point diagrammatically by compar-
ing the Monson-Wadsworth curve and a “practical”
curve as applied to mounted edentulous casts (Fig
9). Line a-a represents the Monson or Wadsworth
curve that often intersects the posterior region of
the maxilla. Line b-b represents a curve that takes
the relationship of the ridges into practical consid-
eration.
Some Other Novel Devices Reflecting
Geometric Principles
In 1930, Edward D. Ralph of Long Island, New
York, in an attempt to emulate the methods of
Needles and Wadsworth, patented an articulator
(Fig 10) that featured a combined gauge (58) for
determining the horizontal position (mesial incisal
point) of the maxillary wax rim and a carving tool
(75, 77) with an adjustable blade (81) for cutting
the occlusal surface of the maxillary wax rim to
conform to the “curve of Spee.”19 Ralph pointed out
that the centers of the curves of Spee for both the
right and left sides are determined individually
because they rarely coincide, that is, the point
where gauge and the carving tool are joined (79).
These centers (ie, the apices of the “Bonwill trian-
58

In about 1935, Sidney C. Fournet of New Or-

leans introduced his philosophy for constructing
complete dentures. His method focused on an im-
pression technique21 and a novel approach to estab-
lishing denture occlusal curves using the Fournet
“Dual Check” articulator.22 The “Dual Check,” pat-
ented in 1942, was a simple-hinge instrument with
spherical templates mounted on vertical axles. It
was intended for mounting casts, setting teeth, and
grinding the teeth to conform to arcs of selected
radii (Fig 12). The device incorporated a convex
template for setting the mandibular teeth and a
concave template for setting the maxillary teeth.
The templates were converted into grinding devices
by applying sandpaper discs to the surfaces and
rotating them by turning the hand-crank. Or, as
Sidney Fournet himself put it, “the invention con-
templates the provision of a novel dental articulator

Figure 13. The P-M instrument, 1960. This is a photo-

graph of the original Pankey-Mann instrument manufac-
tured by Jelenko (Armonk, NY). It was used primarily for
determining the mandibular occlusal curve. (From the
collection of the University of Texas at Houston Dental
Branch.)

gles”) are found to be at a point equidistant from

the mesioincisal point on the wax rim and the
condyle (79). The carving tool is suspended from
these centers. Initially, the vertical position of the
maxillary rim is determined by a Snow-type face-
bow and is supported by 4 adjustable spring-loaded
“yielding plungers.” (66, 67)
In 1935, Edward L. Chott of Chicago received a
patent20 for his “Dental Aligning and Testing De-
vice” and articulator (Fig 11). Chott described his
articulator as a “Stephan-type” that was “well
known to the profession.”20 The testing device was
a triangular-shaped template with a “curvature Figure 14. From the patent drawings of the P-M instru-
similar to that of a sphere having a 4-inch radius” ment. This device was designed to develop the mandib-
for setting the occlusal curves for either the man- ular occlusion to conform to Monson’s spherical princi-
dibular or maxillary denture teeth.20 The template ples. To relate the occlusal plane to the fixed axis of
rotation (132), a mandibular facebow (117) and dividers
was adjusted horizontally and vertically by means of (128) were used to secure the mandibular cast on the
3 spring-loaded rods (or were they “yielding plung- adjustable stage (28) (Reprinted from the 1960 US
ers?”). Patent.14)
 59

Figure 15. (A) A Hanau “University Series” 130-1 articulator with the Broaderick Occlusal Plane Analyzer and the
Schuyler incisal table as might have been used in the P-M S procedures. (From the collection of the University of Texas
Dental Branch.) (B) A schematic drawing of the Hanau incisal table with Schuyler’s adjustable center post to provide
a limited horizontal “freedom in centric” occlusion. (Reprinted from Schuyler, p 1022.30)

which comprehends opposed model mounts which
are relatively adjustable toward and away from one
another, one of such mounts being journalled in a
fixed bearing whereby it can be rotated and said
mount also having attachment means for a spher-
ically surfaced grinding element of predetermined
radius.”22 What else can be said?
In the late 1950s, Lindsey D. Pankey and Arvin
W. Mann of Florida introduced their philosophy for
the oral rehabilitation of natural dentition23,24
along with their technique and articulator (P-M
Instrument)25 (Fig 13). The original Pankey-Mann
system was based on a combination of Monson’s
spherical theory and F.S. Meyer’s functionally gen-
erated path (“chew-in”) technique. The treatment
objective was to achieve bilateral balance in all
mandibular excursions, an idea that apparently had
its origins in the concept of complete denture oc-
clusion.26
The Pankey-Mann system comprised 2 basic re-
storative phases. The first phase involved restora-
tion of the mandibular posterior teeth as near as
possible to the “ideal” 4-inch-radius sphere. For this
phase, a mandibular facebow and dividers were
used to position the mandibular cast and project an
arc from a fixed point to construct a template for
restoring the mandibular teeth (Fig 14). The sec-
ond phase involved restoring the maxillary poste-
rior teeth to the occlusal curve established in the
mandibular arch using Meyer’s functional “chew-
in” procedure but using anterior tooth guidance
during the procedure.27
The Pankey-Mann system began to evolve under
the influence of Clyde Schuyler,28-30 who introduced
several concepts that became integral components
of the system. Balancing side contacts, known to be
destructive to natural dentition, were eliminated.
Much more importance was placed on incisal guid-
ance, and the idea was introduced that instead of a
precise static point of contact in centric occlusion,
there exists a limited area of contact. Thus the
terms “long centric” and “freedom in centric” be-
60

Figure 17. The McMorris articulator, 1956. This device

is a “balancer”-type articulator with a mechanism for
plasterless mounting. The maxillary cast holder features
a dual universal joint arrangement (22, 27) with verti-
cal (13) and horizontal (18) adjustment capability. (Re-
printed from the 1956 US patent.32)

the relationship of the mounted casts. In the patent

letter,31 Beresin explains that for his articulator to
Figure 16. The Beresin articulator, 1953. The support
rods (104, 100) for the maxillary template and cast holder “simulate with substantial accuracy the arcuate
remain fixed while the adjusting mechanism (52, 54, 62) movement of the mandible . . . the [maxillary and
for the mandibular template and cast holder provides the mandibular] elements of the articulator must con-
“functional masticatory movements”—protrusive, retru- form generally both in structure and in function to
sive, and lateral. It can be locked in any desired position. the maxilla and mandible of the human jaw” (Fig
(Reprinted from the 1953 US patent.31)
16). Therefore, the “upper bow, corresponding to
came part of the vernacular. Later, 1 of the Hanau
model “H” series or “University” series articulators
and a basic Hanau facebow were adopted for the
Pankey-Mann-Schuyler system (Fig 15A). Accessories
for the Hanau articulator included the Schuyler
incisal table, featuring a horizontal surface of free-
dom by way of an adjustable center post, and the
Broaderick occlusal plane analyzer mounted on the
upper member and used to locate the common
rotational center from which to scribe occlusal
curves (Fig 15B).
In the last 50 years, numerous articulators have
been produced (both patented and nonpatented)
designed primarily for constructing dentures ac-
cording to a geometric principle. Three interesting
examples are instruments designed by Morris Be-
resin (1953), Robert M. McMorris (1956), and Ber-
Figure 18. The Jankelson “Terminus Precis” articula-
nard Jankelson (1960s). tor, late 1960s. This is essentially a simple hinge device
The Beresin articulator was essentially a hinge- with a clear template set to a predetermined curve.
type instrument with a unique feature for adjusting (Reprinted from Comito, p 9.33)

Figure 19. KaVo EWL Protar articulator system curved
occlusal template for complete denture construction.
(Reprinted from KaVo EWL, Fig. 5434)
the human maxilla is fixed . . . and the [lower bow]
corresponding to the mandible has substantially the
movements as are provided by the temporomandib-
ular joint . . . i.e., lateral, protrusive-retrusive, and
vertical.” Beresin also pointed out that “con-
centric spheres of the same radius are the only
curved surfaces which are capable of [maintain-
ing] . . . continuous contact.” Accordingly, the max-
illary and mandibular templates permit the “artic-
ulation of artificial denture having occlusal surfaces
which conform to concentric spherical surfaces of
the same radius, i.e., 31⁄2 to 6 inches.”31
In 1956, Robert McMorris received a patent32 for
an articulator that was essentially of the “balancer”
type (Fig 17). The maxillary cast holder was at-
tached to a universal joint mechanism suspended
from a standard that could be adjusted vertically
and horizontally. The mandibular cast holder was
fixed but could be swiveled on its base and adjusted
vertically. Both cast holders provided for plasterless
mounting.
Figure 20. Ivoclar Ortho Plane analyzer (biogenic prosthetic technique). (A) Lateral view. (B) Anterior view. This
template is used to form the occlusion rims and as a guide for setting denture teeth to a predetermined “curve of Spee.”
(Reprinted from Ivoclar North America, Figures 7&8.35)
61
In the late 1960s, Bernard Jankelson produced a
device that he called the “Terminus Precis” articu-
lator, which he claimed reproduced precise regis-
trations obtained by using the “Myo-Monitor” (Fig
18). According to Comito,33 the Terminus Precis
provides accuracy for the construction of complete
dentures as well as in full mouth rehabilitation. It
solidly holds the vertical height and centric position
with its unique “double-stop” mechanism. More-
over, the occlusal template is also a multipurpose,
transparent guide for “see-through” mounting of
the casts.
. . . And the Tune Lingers On
William Bonwill, Carl Christensen, and George
Monson have unquestionably had a lasting influ-
ence on the dental profession’s understanding of
mandibular movement and on the design and use of
articulators that reflect geometric principles. Even
today, numerous examples can be cited of denture
teeth and articulator manufacturers offering spher-
ical solutions to denture occlusion, either as an
integral part of their basic technique or as an
alternative method, using accessories to their artic-
ulator. At the present time, as an accessory of the
PROTAR articulator system, KaVo EWL provides a
curved template with a radius of 125 mm for setting
denture teeth (Fig 19). As a part of the Ivoclar
Biogenic prosthetic technique, the Ortho Plane An-
alyzer can be used to fabricate functional occlusion
rims (Fig 20).
(More on the History of Articulators in a future
issue of the Journal of Prosthodontics.)
62
References
1. Needles JW: The mechanics of spherical articulation. J Am
Dent Assoc 1922;9:866-881
2. Starcke EN: The history of articulators: A critical history of
articulators based on geometric theories of mandibular
movement. Part III: The so-called “balancer” designs. J
Prosthod 2002;11:305-320
3. Needles JW: Mandibular movements and articulator design.
J Am Dent Assoc 1923;10:927-935
4. Nichols IG (ed): Prosthetic Dentistry. St. Louis, MO, Mosby,
1930, pp 165, 173
5. Needles JW: Articulator. US Patent No 2,788,575. April 16,
1957
6. Hanau RL: Dental engineering. J Nat Dent Assoc 1922;9:
595-609
7. House JE: The design and use of dental articulators in the
United States, 1840-1970. Masters thesis, Indiana University
School of Dentistry, 1970, pp 162-166
8. Hall RE: An analysis of the development of the articulator.
J Am Dent Assoc 1930;17:3-51
9. Campbell DD: Dental Articulator. US Patent No 1,301,817.
April 29, 1919
10. Campbell DD: The new attachment for the Gysi simplex
articulator. Dent Sum 1920;40:202-213
11. Campbell DD: Denture construction. Dent Sum 1921;41:
216-228
12. Wadsworth FM: Dental Device and Method of Denture
Construction. US Patent No 1,319,737. October 28, 1919
13. Starcke EN: The history of articulators: The appearance and
early history of facebows. J Prosthod 2000;9:161-165
14. Fairhurst R: The Wadsworth articulator. Dent Record 1929;
49:58-66
15. Wadsworth F: A practical system of denture prosthesis in-
cluding the restoration of anatomical articulation. Dent
Cosmos 1925;67:760-770
16. Thomson H (ed): Occlusion. Bristol, UK, John Wright, 1975
17. Paterson, AH: Establishing the prosthetic curves of occlu-
sion on the bite blocks in full denture construction. J Am
Dent Assoc 1927;14:1197-1203
18. Meyer FS: A new, simple and accurate technique for obtain-
ing balanced and functional occlusion. J Am Dent Assoc
1934;21:195-203
19. Ralph ED: Apparatus and Method of Making Dentures. US
Patent No 1,753,965. April 8, 1930
20. Chott EL: Dental Aligning and Testing Device. US Patent
No 2,016,103. October 1, 1935
21. Fournet SC: The Fournet-Tuller application of new mechan-
ical principles to produce full lower dentures with stability
surpassing the best modern upper dentures. Ill Dent J
1938;7:165-175
22. Fournet SC: Method and Apparatus for Making Dental
Restorations. US Patent No 2,270,629. January 20, 1942
23. Mann AW, Pankey LD: Oral rehabilitation. Part I. Use of
the P-M instrument in treatment planning and in restoring
the lower posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1960;10:135-150
24. Mann AW, Pankey LD: Oral rehabilitation. Part II. Recon-
struction of the upper teeth using a functionally generated
path technique. J Prosthet Dent 1960;10:151-162
25. Mann AW, Pankey LD: Articulator With Means to Establish
Mandibular Occlusal Fnction. US Patent No 2,930,127.
March 9, 1960
26. Becker CM, Kaiser DA: Evolution of occlusion and occlusal
instruments. J Prosthodont 1993;2:33-43
27. Meyer FS: Can the plain line articulator meet all the de-
mands of balanced and functional occlusion in all restorative
works? J Colo Dent Assoc 1938;17:6-16
28. Schuyler C: Factors of occlusion applicable to restorative
dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1953;3:772-782
29. Schuyler C: Factors contributing to traumatic occlusion. J
Prosthet Dent 1961;11:708-715
30. Schuyler C: The function and importance of incisal guidance
in oral rehabilitation. J Prosthet Dent 1963;13:1011-1029
31. Beresin M: Dental articulator. US Patent No 2,641,838. June
16, 1953
32. McMorris RM: Dental Articulator. US Patent No 2,765,533.
October 9, 1956
33. Comito J: Adventures in articulators. Nat Assoc Cert Dent
Lab J 1971;18:9
34. KaVo EWL: Procedure manual. Perfect transfer of patient
data via the complete PROTAR system: Set-up template for
full dentures. Leutkirch, Germany, KaVo EWL
35. Ivoclar North America: Basic manual. The Ivoclar Biogenic
prosthetic technique: Use of the Occlusal Plane Analyzer.
Amherst, NY, Ivoclar North America