An interventional study of Jaw Tracking Device in Jaw Tracking, sponsored by Omer Abdelmagid. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 60 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-10-02.
Sponsored by Omer Abdelmagid · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic
This study compares two methods used to measure how teeth come together (occlusal contacts) in patients who have natural teeth (dentate patients). The first method uses a modern jaw tracking device, while the second relies on the conventional mounting technique. The goal is to determine which method is more accurate for diagnosing bite alignment and contact points. This is a diagnostic test accuracy study, meaning it focuses on evaluating how well each technique performs in identifying the correct occlusal contacts.
This study is a diagnostic test accuracy investigation aimed at comparing the precision of two different methods for diagnostic mounting in evaluating occlusal contact points in dentate patients (patients with natural teeth).
The two mounting techniques being compared are:
Jaw Tracking Device-Based Mounting This is a digital approach that utilizes a jaw tracking system to record the patient's mandibular movements accurately. The device captures dynamic jaw positions in real time, allowing for precise simulation of the patient's occlusion on an articulator or in a digital environment.
Conventional Mounting Technique This is the traditional, manual method using mechanical articulators. It typically involves facebow transfer and static bite records to mount the maxillary and mandibular casts in the assumed position. While widely used, this method may be prone to human error and variability.
The primary objective of the study is to assess and compare the accuracy of these two mounting techniques by examining how closely each one replicates the actual occlusal contact points observed intraorally. Occlusal contacts are critical in diagnosing and planning treatments in prosthodontics, orthodontics, and restorative dentistry.
By evaluating these contacts using both methods, the study aims to determine:
Which technique provides a more accurate representation of the patient's true occlusion.
The potential clinical implications of using a jaw tracking device over conventional methods.
Whether digital methods can improve diagnostic reliability and treatment outcomes in daily dental practice.
This study is expected to contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting digital technologies in dentistry, offering insights into their clinical accuracy and potential to replace or supplement traditional techniques.
This is the only study on the registry with Omer Abdelmagid as lead sponsor.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients aged 18 to 60 years Presence of full natural dentition (excluding third molars) No history of occlusal rehabilitation or major prosthodontic treatment
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients with missing teeth (excluding third molars) Patients with bruxism or other parafunctional habits History of orthodontic treatment in the past 2 years Inability to cooperate with diagnostic procedures patient below 18 years old
Device: Jaw Tracking Device
A jaw tracking device is a digital tool that records real-time jaw movements to accurately analyze occlusion and assist in virtual model mounting.
Accuracy of occlusal contact point detection as measured by comparing the contact points obtained from each mounting technique (jaw tracking device vs. conventional mounting) with the clinical intraoral occlusal contacts observed using articulating paper
Time frame: 3 months
No study locations are listed for this record.
Plan to share: Yes — study protocol and statistical analysis
Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Sep 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.