• 1 Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia.
  • 2 School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kota Bharu, 16150, Malaysia
  • 3 College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia
  • 4 Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia
Clin Oral Investig, 2023 Feb;27(2):489-504.
PMID: 36577849 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04835-w


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.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.