The Development of Lingualized Occlusion

Robert L. Engelmeier, BS, DMD, MS, FACP1 & Rodney D. Phoenix, BA, DDS, MS, FACP2
1
Department of Prosthodontics, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
2
Department of Prosthodontics, Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX

Keywords Abstract
Denture occlusion; denture tooth history.
This article is a historical review of the development of the lingualized occlusion
Correspondence
concept over the past century. It focuses on the pioneers of lingualized occlusion and
Robert Engelmeier, University of Pittsburgh
their designs rather than on techniques for achieving a lingualized complete denture
School of Dental Medicine, 3501 Terrace St., occlusion.
Pittsburgh, PA 15261. E-mail: [email protected].

The authors deny any conflicts of interest.

Accepted February 6, 2017

doi: 10.1111/jopr.12624

Lingualized Occlusion has been defined as “a form of den- article has focused on the historical development of lingual-
ture occlusion that articulates the maxillary lingual cusps with ized occlusion. Because of conceptual similarities with lingual-
the mandibular occlusal surfaces in centric, working, and non- ized occlusion, linear occlusion7 has also been included in this
working mandibular positions.”1 While lingualized occlusion discussion.
has been an option for nearly a century, it has only been during
the past 35 years that its popularity has rivaled anatomic and
neutrocentric denture occlusion. The development of dental im- The origins of lingualized occlusion
plants, as common therapy to support fixed detachable overden-
The biomechanical concept of lingualized occlusion was rooted
tures, has forced the profession to reevaluate occlusal choices
in Alfred Gysi’s 1927 design for his Cross-bite Posterior Teeth
for these unique, but less forgiving, restorations. Lingualized
(Figs 1–3).8-10 He reported that 60% of the edentulous pa-
occlusion, because of esthetic, biomechanical, and technical ad-
tients at the University of Zurich Clinic, during the early 20th
vantages, has, for some, emerged as the logical choice. A num-
century, had posterior cross-bites, primarily due to normal re-
ber of authors have extolled the advantages of lingualized occlu-
sorption of their edentulous jaws. Gysi well understood the
sion without listing any disadvantages or contraindications.2-4
challenges in setting anatomic teeth in a balanced occlusion
The advantages of lingualized2-4 or lingual contact occlusion5
for such patients. He designed his cross-bite posteriors to mini-
are:
mize tilting/dislodging forces generated in cross-bite situations.
 Good esthetics In addition, he fashioned them to be esthetic and easy to set. He
 Good bolus penetration was first to report the advantages of lingualized teeth. His cross
 Simple technique bite posterior porcelain teeth were manufactured and marketed
 Additional stability in parafunction by the Dentist’s Supply Company of New York.
 Reduced lateral forces directed toward alveolar ridges Alfred Lüthy, of Aarau, Switzerland, was granted a United
 Ease of adjustment States patent in 1934 for a mortar and pestle occlusal design.11
 An area of closure provided that better accommodates These nonanatomic, porcelain teeth were specifically shaped
basal seat changes for a lingualized occlusion (Fig 4).11 No evidence was found
 More easily used in Class II, Class III, and cross-bite of American manufacturing or marketing of these teeth.
situations By 1935, Dr. Felix French, of Ottawa, Ontario, had refined
 Compatible with the tenets of neutrocentric occlusion his nonanatomic tooth design. Dr. French’s Modified Posterior
Teeth were esthetic, free to glide in all directions, and easy to
The intention of this article was not to promote or criti- set. They delivered occlusal forces to the alveolar ridges in the
cize lingualized occlusion. Since recent authors have provided same manner as Gysi’s Cross-bite Posteriors. In principle, they
a thorough description of and rationale for lingualized occlu- formed a lingualized occlusion (Figs 5–7).12-14 Dr. French’s
sion, along with a review of techniques to accomplish it,6 this posterior teeth were offered in both porcelain and acrylic resin

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists 1
Lingualized Occlusion Development Engelmeier and Phoenix

Figure 1 The concept of lingualized occlusion was developed by Dr.

Alfred Gysi of the University of Zurich.

by the Universal Dental Company, and remained in production

through the turn of the 21st century. Unfortunately these superb
teeth are no longer commercially available. Figure 2 Gysi was granted a U.S. patent for his Cross-bite Posterior
Teeth which were manufactured by the Dentist’s Supply Company of
New York.
Lingualized occlusion comes of age
Despite U.S. marketing of Gysi’s and French’s posteriors, lin- Only the maxillary lingual cusps contacted the mandibular oc-
gualized occlusion, as a concept, remained somewhat obscure clusal surfaces (in all excursions). Payne’s modification dia-
until the 1940s. Dr. S. Howard Payne, of Kenmore, NY, was grams were not unlike those illustrated in later-20th-century
probably the first to describe lingualized occlusion as it has commercial literature of the major American denture tooth
come to be understood (Figs 8 and 9).15,16 In his 1941 article, manufacturers. As Payne continued to report on his studies
he described a technique developed by Dr. Edison J. Farmer, of denture occlusion through the mid-1950s, his final (and logi-
of Buffalo. Basically, 30° anatomic porcelain teeth were mod- cal) recommendation was to match the choice of occlusion with
ified by careful grinding to achieve a mortar and pestle effect. the needs of each patient.17

Figure 3 Gysi’s Cross-bite Posterior Teeth, courtesy

collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.

2 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Engelmeier and Phoenix Lingualized Occlusion Development

Figure 5 Dr. Felix French of Ottawa, Ontario designed Dr. French’s

Modified Posterior Teeth.

Figure 6 Dr. French’s Modified Posterior Teeth, courtesy collection of

Figure 4 Alfred Lűthy received a 1934 United States patent for his Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
mortar and pestle occlusal design.

In 1955, Chastain G. Porter, of Kansas City, advocated use

of nonanatomic teeth with no cusp height, sharp cutting ridges,
and excellent sluiceways. His method of altering the mandibu-
lar teeth left working contacts only on the lingual half of the
occlusal surfaces. The buccal half was left in “subocclusion.”
Diagrams of his reshaped teeth were not unlike Dr. French’s
posterior teeth.18
Dr. M.B. Sosin’s, 1961 Cross Bladed Occlusal Inserts con-
sisted of nonanatomic metal occlusals set in the maxillary arch.
These were used to functionally generate the mandibular metal
occlusal anatomy. Sosin’s metal occlusals provided a lingual-
ized occlusion.19 These teeth were not commercially available.
Dr. Sosin produced these teeth for his private use and boasted
that he had produced over 2000 cross-bladed dentures. He did
apparently distribute some of these inserts at courses that he
offered at the time.
Through the late 1960s and 1970s, Dr. Earl Pound, of Los
Angeles, emerged as a champion of lingualized occlusion
(Fig 10).20 In his writings and courses, he advocated use of Figure 7 French’s and Gysi’s lingualized teeth both delivered forces to
30° to 40° maxillary anatomic teeth set to where their lingual the alveolar ridges in a similar manner.

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists 3
Lingualized Occlusion Development Engelmeier and Phoenix

Figure 8 Dr. S. Howard Payne, whose 1941 article defined lingualized Figure 10 Dr. Earl Pound of Los Angeles was a strong advocate of
occlusion as it has come to be understood. lingualized occlusion.

Figure 11 Pound eliminated all maxillary buccal cusp contact by reshap-

ing the mandibular buccal cusps.

cusps functioned in the central fossae of mandibular teeth hav-

ing a cusp angle of 20° or less. His reasons were good esthetics,
chewing efficiency, and control of occlusal forces. He believed
the mandibular fossae to be the controlling factor in a balanced
occlusion. He eliminated all maxillary buccal cusp contact by
recontouring the mandibular buccal cusps (Fig 11).21 He set the
central fossae of the mandibular posteriors over the center of
the alveolar ridge. He also placed the mandibular lingual cusps
within triangles from the mesial of the mandibular canines to
either side of the retromolar pads (Fig 12).21 Pound’s triangle
Figure 9 Dr. Payne’s modification diagrams were not unlike those from also helped assure adequate tongue space. Pound was probably
later 20th century manufacturers’ literature. best known for his use of speech to establish incisal guidance,
which he considered a cardinal element in establishing denture

4 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Engelmeier and Phoenix Lingualized Occlusion Development

Figure 12 Pound’s triangle was formed by the mesial contact points of

the mandibular canines and points on either side of the retromolar pads.

occlusion. He preferred to cast custom gold occlusals to pre-

serve denture occlusion.21 Another 1970s lingualized occlusion
advocate, Dr. Frank R. Lauciello, later recommended function-
ally generated amalgam stops in the mandibular teeth for the Figure 13 Trubyte 10° Functional Maxillary Posteriors and 0° Rational
same reason.22 Mandibular Posteriors, courtesy collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
Through the 1970s, additional authors contributed to the lin-
gualized occlusion literature. Among the more notable were
Harold R. Ortman,23 George A. Murrel,24 Curtis M. Becker,
Charles C. Swoope, and Albert D. Guckes,25 as well as
Ellsworth Kelly.26 During the 1970s, Dentsply published a
technical bulletin describing a lingualized occlusion achieved
by setting Trubyte 10° Functional Posteriors in the maxillary
arch against 0° Rational Posteriors in the mandibular arch
(Figs 13 and 14).27
At this same time Myerson Tooth Corporation recommended
use of their cross-linked polymer 30° Duratomic Posterior Teeth
in maxillary dentures and 0° Durablend Posterior Teeth in
mandibular dentures for a lingualized occlusion (Fig 15). Such
mismatching of posterior tooth molds allowed a lingualized oc-
clusion to be achieved without excessive grinding/reshaping of
all posterior teeth.
All references to cusp angles in this series have been used as
a convenient term of classification not quantification. Accord-
ing to the Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms, “Cusp Angle has
been defined as the angle made by the average slope of a cusp
and cusp plane measured mesial-distally or buccolingually.”1
“Cusp Plane has been defined as the plane determined by the
two buccal cusp tips and the highest lingual cusp of a molar.”1
Zamikoff,28 and later Lang and Thompson,29 demonstrated that
cusp angles, as reported by denture tooth manufacturers were
not the same as the actual, measured cusp angles of mandibular
first molars. Variations ranged from ±1° to ±1.7° depending on
manufacturer and material used. They pointed out that the true Figure 14 Illustration from Dentsply literature demonstrating the Func-
cusp angles were decided by 3D movement of opposing cusp tional/Rational technique.
tips traveling the working, balancing, and protrusive dynamic
paths across a tooth’s inclines (i.e., that all of the determinants
of occlusion had to be factored into a cusp’s angle).

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists 5
Lingualized Occlusion Development Engelmeier and Phoenix

Figure 17 Lingualizing Bur System designed by Dr. Joseph Massad to

easily create 11° tapered fossae in mandibular posterior teeth.

ever produced, three have been included here because of their

uniqueness: the 1951 design of Jason D. Kinsley of Cedar
Rapids, IA (Fig 18);31 the 1952 design of Hubert A. Goddard
of Knoxville (Fig 19),32 who patented an improvement of this
design in 1966;33 and the 1967 design of Albert Gerber of
Zurich (Fig 20)34 who also received a second patent for his
improved design in 1980.35 Two interesting metal occlusal de-
Figure 15 Myerson Tooth Corporation’s 30° Duratomic, cross-linked
signs also emerged during this period. The unmarketed, 1987
polymer posterior teeth, and 0° Durablend, Sears-Myerson posterior
design of Robert D. Carlson, of San Diego (Fig 21);36 and the
teeth, courtesy collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
1977 lingual bladed teeth of Dr. Bernard Levin of Los Angeles,
which were marketed by American Tooth Industries (Fig 22).37
By 1980, the popularity of lingualized occlusion had grown
considerably. As more lingualized occlusion articles appeared
in the literature, many manufacturers offered new molds specif-
ically designed for this occlusal concept.38-41

Dentsply International
Around 1980, Dentsply launched an aggressive marketing cam-
paign centered on lingualized occlusion. Their updated recom-
mendation was use of their new 10° Anatoline seminatomic
mold in the maxillary arch and their redesigned 0° Monoline
mold in the mandibular arch. These teeth were originally of-
fered in their new “IPN” polymer (Interpenetrating Polymer
Network), then later in their improved “SLM” polymer (Sus-
Figure 16 Lingualizing Bur System designed by Dr. Joseph Massad to tained Life Material) (Fig 23). Dentsply’s literature, by the
easily create 11° tapered fossae in mandibular posterior teeth. turn of the 21st century, recommended combinations of their
standard posterior molds to achieve a lingualized occlusion
Therefore, teeth with a manufacturer’s reported cusp angle (Table 1).42
of 30° or more had taller, sharper, and more well-defined cusps. With so many choices, Dentsply elected not to create molds
Generally, they appeared more anatomically correct. As cusp specifically designed for a mortar and pestle occlusion. By
angles were decreased, cusps became shorter, more rounded, 2005, they had relabeled and recarded their 33° maxillary
and less anatomically correct, giving those teeth a “worn” look. anatomic posteriors with both their 22° Biostabil mandibu-
In the late 1990s, Dr. Joseph J. Massad, of Tulsa, developed lar posteriors and 0° Monoline mandibular posteriors. They
and marketed burs specifically designed to easily shape con- marketed both combinations as their “Portrait IPN Lingualized
sistent, hollow ground fossae in mandibular occlusal surfaces. Teeth.”
His patented Lingualizing Bur System created broad, rounded
fossae with 11° of taper on all inclines (Figs 16 and 17).30 Myerson Tooth Corporation
Between 1950 and 1990, a number of U.S. Patents were
granted for nonanatomic teeth that produced a lingualized As mentioned earlier, Myerson Tooth Corporation origi-
occlusion. Despite a lack of evidence that these teeth were nally recommended the combination of their 30° Duratomic

6 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Engelmeier and Phoenix Lingualized Occlusion Development

Figure 18 The 1951 lingualized occlusal design of Jason Kinsley.

Table 1 Dentsply’s recommended combinations of their standard pos-

terior molds to achieve a lingualized occlusion Figure 19 The 1952 lingualized, non-anatomic design of Hubert A. God-
dard.
Maxillary posteriors Associated mandibular posteriors

40° Euroline Molds 10° Anatoline Molds

40° Euroline Molds 0° Monoline Molds In the early 1990s, Myerson developed their MLI molds
33° Trubyte Molds 10° Anatoline Molds (Myerson Lingualized Integrated) specifically for a balanced
33° Trubyte Molds 0° Monoline Molds lingualized occlusion. They marketed these teeth for use on
30° Pilkington-Turner Molds 22° Biostabil Molds implant-supported overdentures as well as fixed/detachable
30° Pilkington-Turner Molds 10° Anatoline Molds restorations. Myerson produced two distinctly different MLI
30° Pilkington-Turner Molds 0° Monoline Molds maxillary molds but only one mandibular mold for this line of
22° Biostabil Molds 0° Monoline Molds teeth. Though they did not list cusp angles for these teeth, the
20° Posterior Molds 0° Monoline Molds maxillary Maximum Contact teeth had the steeper cusps and
10° Anatoline Molds 0° Monoline Molds
were similar to Myerson’s 30° Duratomic Posteriors. They al-
lowed a larger interval of cusp contact during functional move-
ments. The Maxillary Controlled Contact teeth had shorter,
maxillary molds and 0° Durablend (Sears-Myerson) mandibu- more blunted cusps. They were most comparable to Dentsply’s
lar molds to create a lingualized occlusion. Dr. Brien Lang,6 10° Functional Teeth.44 Both of these maxillary molds were
who has arguably written more about lingualized occlusion intended to be set against the same mandibular 0° mold, which
than anyone else, has pointed out the necessity of reshaping the resembled Sears-Myerson Flat-Planed Teeth with enlarged cen-
fossae of mandibular teeth used in a lingualized occlusion to tral fossae. These cross-linked polymer teeth were very esthetic
assure the mortar and pestle effect (Figs 24 and 25).43 and easy to set but did not compete as well in the marketplace

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists 7
Lingualized Occlusion Development Engelmeier and Phoenix

Figure 21 The 1987 lingualized metal occlusals of Robert D. Carlson.

Figure 20 The 1967 lingualized occlusal design of Albert Gerber.

as had been hoped. They did, however, remain in production

through the turn of the 21st century45 (Fig 26).

Universal dental company

Besides Dr. French’s posteriors, described earlier, the Univer-
sal Dental Company produced tooth molds that could be nicely
mismatched to produce a lingualized occlusion. All Univer-
sal teeth were offered in both porcelain and plastic. Their 30°
Nuform Anatomic Teeth, 20° Noninterfering cusp (NIC) Semi- Figure 22 Dr. Levin’s Lingual Bladed teeth, which were marketed by
anatomic teeth, and 10° ‘H’ Mold Teeth could be set against American tooth Industries, courtesy collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
their 0° Biomechanical Posteriors (Fig 27). Universal also of-
fered a mold specifically fashioned for a lingualized occlusion. Terms credited William H. Goddard as the first to describe lin-
Their Optiform Posterior Teeth had exaggerated maxillary lin- ear occlusion.1 The porcelain version of the Universal Linear
gual cusps and large, cupped-out mandibular fossae. These es- Mold consisted of individual flattened maxillary teeth where the
thetic, easy-to-set teeth truly functioned as a mortar and pestle occlusal surfaces were slightly concave. They articulated with
occlusion. They were supplied in three sizes and six shades. individual mandibular teeth, which were similar to Dr. Frush’s
The maxillary cusp angle was advertised to be 32°, while the designs described below in the Swissedent section. The plastic
inclines of the mandibular fossae were listed as 10° (Fig 28). version of these teeth was a maxillary and mandibular block
The Universal Dental Company offered two types of lingual- with occlusal anatomy similar to the porcelain version except
ized/linear occlusion molds. The Glossary of Prosthodontic for a stainless steel cutter bar embedded into the mandibular

8 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Engelmeier and Phoenix Lingualized Occlusion Development

Figure 23 Dentsply’s Maxillary 10° Anatoline and 0° Mandibular Mono-

line Teeth, courtesy collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier. Figure 25 Dr. Brien R. Lang, who has made a significant contribution to
the complete denture occlusion literature.

Figure 24 Reshaping the fossae of mandibular posteriors prior to setting

them in a lingualized occlusion.

knife-like ridge. Sales literature referred to these teeth as “self-

leveling” (i.e., self-adjusting) (Fig 29).

Swissedent/Geneva Dental, Incorporated

In 1953, Dr. John P. Frush (Fig 30),46 best known for his
Dentogenic philosophy,47 established the Swissedent Founda-
tion in Glendale, CA. The Foundation became the Research
Division of Swissedent Corporation and held all U.S. mar-
keting rights for Swissedent products. After Dr. Frush re-
tired in 1993, the Foundation and marketing rights were ac- Figure 26 Myerson’s two “MLI” maxillary molds (Maximum Contact
and Controlled Contact) and solitary mandibular mold, designed for a
quired by Dr. Roy A. Smudde of the Foundation. All of the
lingualized occlusion, courtesy collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
original Swissedent products continued to be available in the
United States under the new corporate name of Geneva Dental,
Incorporated.48

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists 9
Lingualized Occlusion Development Engelmeier and Phoenix

Figure 27 Universal’s 20° Non-Interfering Cusp (NIC) and 0° Biomechan-

ical Mandibular Posteriors (courtesy collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier).
Their 30° Nuform and 10° “H” mold maxillary posteriors could also be
set against their 0° Biomechanical mandibular posteriors to achieve a
lingualized occlusion.

Figure 30 Dr. John P. Frush, strong proponent of linear occlusion and

designer of Swissedent’s Centrimatic Teeth.

Figure 28 Universal’s lingualized Optiform teeth, courtesy collection of Dr. Gerber also designed a complete denture articulator. The
Dr. Robert Engelmeier. Condylator along with its facebow and recording device was
meant to be used with Condyloform teeth as a denture occlusal
system.50
Dr. Frush received a 1972 U.S. patent for a linear occlusal de-
sign, which essentially became Swissedent’s Centrimatic Teeth
(Figs 33 and 34).51 These teeth were renamed “Auto Centric”
after the 1993 corporate name change. They were classified as
lingualized teeth because of how they delivered forces to the
alveolar ridges. The 0° maxillary posteriors were flat and de-
void of any occlusal anatomy. The 0° mandibular teeth had no
buccal cusps, a strong and straight mesial-distal cutting ridge,
and fossae on the lingual half of the occlusal, which provided
Figure 29 Universal’s linear Centric Line teeth as a quadrant block in efficient sluiceways for food clearance. Once the teeth were set,
plastic with an embedded, stainless steel cutter bar, courtesy collection the mandibular central ridges aligned to form a straight “cut-
of Dr. Robert Engelmeier. ting blade” which functioned against the maxillary flat “blocks”
(Fig 35). These teeth were available in porcelain and plastic.
Geneva Dental produced two distinctly different poste- They remained in production through the turn of the 21st cen-
rior molds specifically designed for a lingualized occlusion. tury. Centrimatics were surprisingly esthetic and very easy to
Their Condyloform Teeth paired a very esthetic 30° maxillary set. Drs. Gronas and Stout52 published a comprehensive ar-
anatomic occlusal with a 10° to 12° mandibular semianatomic ticle concerning linear occlusion in 1974. In addition, more
occlusal. The maxillary functional lingual cusps were some- recent articles have pointed out the advantages of reduced oc-
what exaggerated, while the opposing mandibular fossae had clusal forces, denture stability, and patient comfort with a linear
been broadened and rounded out. They appeared as significantly occlusion.53,54
worn teeth. This was a true mortar and pestle design. Company
sales literature boasted that these teeth were a favorite of the Justi/American Tooth Industries
eminent Dr. Earl Pound49 (Fig 31). Condyloform teeth were de-
veloped by Professor Albert Gerber of the University of Zurich Justi offered a full line of molds, which could be mismatched in
in 1948 (Fig 32). The two previously mentioned patents of Dr. several ways to establish a lingualized occlusion. The line in-
Gerber were refinements of his original Condyloform design. cluded: 33° Anatomic, 20° Semianatomic, 10° Symmetry Pos-

10 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Engelmeier and Phoenix Lingualized Occlusion Development

Figure 31 Swissedent Condyloform Teeth were a favorite of Dr. Earl

Pound, courtesy collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.

Figure 33 Dr. Frush’s 1972 U.S. patent for Linear Occlusion.

teriors, and 0° Planatomical Posterior molds.55 In addition, Justi

offered the very unique metal lingual bladed teeth designed by
Dr. Bernard Levin. These teeth were arguably the most esthetic
and intelligently designed metal occlusal ever developed.

Vident/Vita
Vident was established in 1984 to serve the dental laboratory
market through development and distribution of equipment and
Vita products.56 Their maxillary 23° to 28° Cuspiform or 18° to
20° Duostat posteriors could be set against their 5° Synoform
posteriors to create a lingualized occlusion. In addition, they
advertised their 28° to 33° Physiodens molds as being suitable
for any occlusal scheme, particularly a lingualized occlusion.
Figure 32 Professor Albert Gerber developed Condyloform Teeth in
The cusp angle of each tooth varied according to tooth size and
1948. position in the arch. An additional advantage of these teeth was
that their occlusal surfaces could be built up and reshaped with
the manufacturer’s composite57 (Fig 36).

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists 11
Lingualized Occlusion Development Engelmeier and Phoenix

Figure 35 Swissedent Centrimatic teeth, courtesy collection of Dr.

Robert Engelmeier.

Figure 36 Vident Physiodens Posterior Teeth.

Figure 34 Swisedent Centrimatic Teeth, courtesy collection of Dr.

Robert Engelmeier.

Ivoclar/Vivadent
Ivoclar AG was originally founded in 1933 as the Ramco AG
(tooth factory) of Schaan, Liechtenstein. Ramco was renamed
Ivoclar in 1951, and in 1979, Ivoclar U.S.A. was established
in San Marcos, CA. By 1987, Ivoclar AG, Williams Gold Re-
fining Company of Buffalo, and Vivadent of Schaan, Liechten-
stein had merged to form Ivoclar of North America, Incorpo-
rated, headquartered in Amherst, NY. The corporate name was
changed to Ivoclar Vivadent, Incorporated in 2001.58 Figure 37 Ivoclar maxillary and mandibular Ortholingual posterior teeth.
Arguably, Ivoclar manufactured some of the most esthetic The maxillary Ortholingual teeth can also be used with the Orthoplane
teeth of the late 20th century. Through the end of the century (0°) mandibular posterior teeth, courtesy collection of Dr. Robert En-
they offered their “Orthotyp” cross-linked acrylic and porce- gelmeier.
lain posteriors in three semi-anatomic configurations. The “N”
molds were meant for a normal (Angles Class I) bite. They had a excellent sluiceways. “Ortholingual” molds were specifically
cusp angle near 20°. The “T” molds were intended for patients designed for a lingualized occlusion. Their maxillary lingual
with a “deep bite.” The cusps were steeper to accommodate functional cusps were exaggerated and articulated in mandibu-
the increased incisal guidance and vertical overlap. “K” molds lar fossae with 15° inclines. The “Postaris” anatomical teeth had
were designed for use in cross-bite situations. Around the turn 33° cuspal inclines. All three new mold lines were offered in
of the 21st century, Ivoclar introduced three new lines of teeth. double cross-linked polymethylmethacrylate. Shortly after the
The “Orthoplane” molds were very esthetic, 0° posteriors with introduction of the Orthoplane and Ortholingual molds, Ivoclar

12 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Engelmeier and Phoenix Lingualized Occlusion Development

embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign centered on 21. Pound E: Utilizing speech to simplify a personalized denture
complete denture esthetics, occlusion, and wear resistance. service. J Prosthet Dent 1970;24:586-600
They revised and greatly simplified their mold guide, which 22. Lauciello FR: Articulator-generated amalgam stops for complete
only offered 0° Orthoplane, 33° Postaris, 15° Ortholingual, and dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:16-20.
new 22° Orthotyp semi-anatomic posteriors4,59 (Fig 37). The 23. Ortman HR: The role of occlusion in preservation and prevention
in complete denture prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent
company recommended that a lingualized occlusion be devel-
1971;25:121-138
oped by setting maxillary and mandibular Ortholingual teeth 24. Murrell GA: The management of difficult lower dentures. J
or by setting maxillary Ortholingual teeth against mandibular Prosthet Dent 1974;32:243-250
Orthoplane teeth. 25. Becker CM, Swoope CC, Guckes AD: Lingualized
occlusion for removable prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent
1977;38:601-608
Conclusion 26. Kelly E: Centric relation, centric occlusion, and posterior tooth
forms and arrangement. J Prosthet Dent 1977;37:5-11
By the early 21st century, lingualized occlusion had finally 27. The Trubyte Functional/Rational Posterior Technique. Dentsly
become well established. Numerous authors considered it the Technical Bulletin, No. 3312-B.
occlusion of choice for most edentulous patients, and the major 28. Zamikoff II: Steriogrammetric measurement of selected cusp
American tooth suppliers had either introduced new lingualized angles of artificial mandibular first molars-Master’s thesis. U of
molds or recommended different cross matches of teeth already Michigan, School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, 1970
in their inventories to achieve a lingualized occlusion. Also by 29. Lang BR, Thompson RM: The cusp angles of artificial
that time most U.S. dental schools had introduced lingualized mandibular first molars. J Prosthet Dent 1972;28:26-35
occlusion in some form into their prosthodontic curriculum. 30. Massad JJ, Connelly ME, Davis WJ, et al: Mechanical
lingualizing posterior occlusion to enhance denture stability.
Dent Prod Reports, 2000;October: 56-61
References 31. Kinsley JD: Artificial Denture. United States Patent No.
2,570,562, October 9, 1951.
1. Van Blarcom CW: The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J 32. Goddard HA: Artificial Denture. United States Patent No.
Prosthet Dent 1999;81:39-110 2,617,192, November 11, 1952
2. Parr, GR, Loft GH: The occlusal spectrum and complete 33. Goddard HA: Artificial Dentures. United States Patent No.
dentures. Compend Contin Ed 1982;3:241-249 3,252,220, May 24, 1966
3. Parr GR, Ivanhoe JR: Lingualized occlusion, an occlusion for all 34. Gerber A: Artificial Dentures. United States Patent No.
reasons. Dent Clin North Am 1996;40:103-112 3,305,926, February 28, 1967
4. Lang BR, Lauciello FR, McGivney GP, et al: Contemporary 35. Gerber A: Artificial Dentures. Untied States Patent No.
Complete Denture Occlusion. Amhurst, NY, Ivoclar Vivadent, 4,208,794, June 24, 1980
Inc., 2003, pp. 7-12 36. Carlson RD: Denture with Chewing Insert. United States Patent
5. Ortman HR: Complete denture occlusion. In Winkler S (ed): No. 4,642,052, February 10, 1987.
Essentials of Complete Denture Prosthodontics, (ed 2). Littleton, 37. Levin B: A review of artificial posterior tooth forms including a
MA, PSG Publishing, 1988, pp. 217-249 preliminary report on a new posterior tooth. J Prosthet Dent
6. Lang BR: Complete denture occlusion. Dent Clin North Am 1977;38:3-15
2004;48:641-665 38. Clough HE, Knodle JN, Leeper SH, et al: A comparison of
7. Frush JP: Linear occlusion. II. Dent J 1966;35:788-794 lingualized occlusion and monoplane occlusion in complete
8. Hoffman-Axthelm W: History of Dentistry. Chicago, dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:176-179
Quintessence Publishing Company, 1981, p. 270 39. Parr GR, Loft GH: The occlusal spectrum and complete dentures.
9. Gysi A: Special teeth for cross-bite purposes. Dent Digest Comp Contin Ed 1982;3:241-248
1927;33:670–677 40. Lang BR, Razzoog ME: A practical approach to restoring
10. Gysi A: Artificial Molar Tooth. U.S. Patent No. 1,657,673, occlusion for edentulous patients – Part I: Guiding principles of
January 31, 1928 tooth selection. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:455-458
11. Lüthy A: Production of Artificial Teeth. U.S. Patent No. 41. Lang BR, Razzoog ME: A practical approach to restoring
1,963,207, June 19, 1934 occlusion for edentulous patients – Part II: Arranging the
12. Honey SL: Who’s who at the convention. J Ontario Dent Assoc functional and rational mold combination. J Prosthet Dent
1950;27:120 1983;50:599-606
13. French FA: As we progress. Dent Items Interest 1935;57:730-741 42. Occlusal Options. York, PA, Dentsply International, 2002
14. French FA: The problem of building satisfactory dentures. J 43. Archieves. Dr. Brien R. Lang, 2005
Prosthet Dent 1954;4:769-781 44. Personal Communication. Dr. Brien R. Lang, 2005
15. Program Missouri-Kansas Bi-State Meeting, Lecture Program. J 45. Lang BR, Razzoog ME: Lingualized integration: Tooth molds
Missouri State Dent Assn 1955;35:18. and an occlusal scheme for edentulous implant patients. Implant
16. Payne SH: A posterior set-up to meet individual requirements. Dent 1992;1:204-211
Dent Digest 1941;47:20-22 46. Missouri State Dental Association – 9 Annual Meeting
17. Payne SH: Selective occlusion. J Prosthet Dent 1955;51:301-304 Program. Missouri State Dental Association, 1959
18. Porter CG: The cuspless centralized occlusal pattern. J Prosthet 47. Frush JP, Fisher RD: Introduction to dentogenic restorations. J
Dent 1955;5:313-318 Prosthet Dent 1955;5:586-595
19. Sosin MB: Re-evaluation of posterior tooth forms for complete 48. Geneva Dental Archives
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11:55-61 49. Swissedent Sales Literature
20. Pound E: Personalized Denture Procedures. Anaheim, Denar 50. Archives: Condyloform Posterior Teeth, 2005.
Corp., 1973, p 4. http://www.condylator.com/en/history.htm. Accessed 1/9/17

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists 13
Lingualized Occlusion Development Engelmeier and Phoenix

51. Frush JP: Artificial Denture. United States Patent No. 3,638,309, occlusal plane selection, and centric recording. J Prosthodont
February 1, 1972 2004;13:55-61
52. Gronas DG, Stout CJ: Lineal occlusion concepts for complete 55. Justi Mold Guide. American Tooth Industries, 1996
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1974;32:122-129 56. Vident Archieves
53. Jameson WS: Linear occlusion: An alternative tooth form and 57. Vita Physiodens, Mold Guide, Vita, 2005
occlusal concept as used in complete denture prosthodontics. 58. Perfecting the Art and Science of Dentistry. Amerhest, NY,
Gen Dent 2001;49:374-382 Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., 2003
54. Williamson RA, Williamson AE, Bowley J, et al: Maximizing 59. Blueline Esthetic Denture Teeth, Mold Chart, Amhrest, New
mandibular prosthesis stability utilizing linear occlusion, York, Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., 2004.

14 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists