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: rle14@pitt.edu.

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-
ture occlusion that articulates the maxillary lingual cusps with
the mandibular occlusal surfaces in centric, working, and non-
working mandibular positions.”1 While lingualized occlusion
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-
plants, as common therapy to support fixed detachable overden-
tures, has forced the profession to reevaluate occlusal choices
for these unique, but less forgiving, restorations. Lingualized
occlusion, because of esthetic, biomechanical, and technical ad-
vantages, has, for some, emerged as the logical choice. A num-
ber of authors have extolled the advantages of lingualized occlu-
sion without listing any disadvantages or contraindications.2-4
The advantages of lingualized2-4 or lingual contact occlusion5
are:
 Good esthetics
 Good bolus penetration
 Simple technique
 Additional stability in parafunction
 Reduced lateral forces directed toward alveolar ridges
 Ease of adjustment
 An area of closure provided that better accommodates
basal seat changes
 More easily used in Class II, Class III, and cross-bite
situations
 Compatible with the tenets of neutrocentric occlusion
The intention of this article was not to promote or criti-
cize lingualized occlusion. Since recent authors have provided
a thorough description of and rationale for lingualized occlu-
sion, along with a review of techniques to accomplish it,6 this
article has focused on the historical development of lingual-
ized occlusion. Because of conceptual similarities with lingual-
ized occlusion, linear occlusion7 has also been included in this
discussion.
The origins of lingualized occlusion
The biomechanical concept of lingualized occlusion was rooted
in Alfred Gysi’s 1927 design for his Cross-bite Posterior Teeth
(Figs 1–3).8-10 He reported that 60% of the edentulous pa-
tients at the University of Zurich Clinic, during the early 20th
century, had posterior cross-bites, primarily due to normal re-
sorption of their edentulous jaws. Gysi well understood the
challenges in setting anatomic teeth in a balanced occlusion
for such patients. He designed his cross-bite posteriors to mini-
mize tilting/dislodging forces generated in cross-bite situations.
In addition, he fashioned them to be esthetic and easy to set. He
was first to report the advantages of lingualized teeth. His cross
bite posterior porcelain teeth were manufactured and marketed
by the Dentist’s Supply Company of New York.
Alfred Lüthy, of Aarau, Switzerland, was granted a United
States patent in 1934 for a mortar and pestle occlusal design.11
These nonanatomic, porcelain teeth were specifically shaped
for a lingualized occlusion (Fig 4).11 No evidence was found
of American manufacturing or marketing of these teeth.
By 1935, Dr. Felix French, of Ottawa, Ontario, had refined
his nonanatomic tooth design. Dr. French’s Modified Posterior
Teeth were esthetic, free to glide in all directions, and easy to
set. They delivered occlusal forces to the alveolar ridges in the
same manner as Gysi’s Cross-bite Posteriors. In principle, they
formed a lingualized occlusion (Figs 5–7).12-14 Dr. French’s
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
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.
Lingualized occlusion comes of age
Despite U.S. marketing of Gysi’s and French’s posteriors, lin-
gualized occlusion, as a concept, remained somewhat obscure
until the 1940s. Dr. S. Howard Payne, of Kenmore, NY, was
probably the first to describe lingualized occlusion as it has
come to be understood (Figs 8 and 9).15,16 In his 1941 article,
he described a technique developed by Dr. Edison J. Farmer,
of Buffalo. Basically, 30° anatomic porcelain teeth were mod-
ified by careful grinding to achieve a mortar and pestle effect.
2 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 
Engelmeier and Phoenix
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.
Only the maxillary lingual cusps contacted the mandibular oc-
clusal surfaces (in all excursions). Payne’s modification dia-
grams were not unlike those illustrated in later-20th-century
commercial literature of the major American denture tooth
manufacturers. As Payne continued to report on his studies
of denture occlusion through the mid-1950s, his final (and logi-
cal) recommendation was to match the choice of occlusion with
the needs of each patient.17
Figure 3 Gysi’s Cross-bite Posterior Teeth, courtesy
collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
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
Figure 8 Dr. S. Howard Payne, whose 1941 article defined lingualized
occlusion as it has come to be understood.
Figure 9 Dr. Payne’s modification diagrams were not unlike those from
later 20th century manufacturers’ literature.
4 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 
Engelmeier and Phoenix
Figure 10 Dr. Earl Pound of Los Angeles was a strong advocate of
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
also helped assure adequate tongue space. Pound was probably
best known for his use of speech to establish incisal guidance,
which he considered a cardinal element in establishing denture
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
Figure 15 Myerson Tooth Corporation’s 30° Duratomic, cross-linked
polymer posterior teeth, and 0° Durablend, Sears-Myerson posterior
teeth, courtesy collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
Figure 16 Lingualizing Bur System designed by Dr. Joseph Massad to
easily create 11° tapered fossae in mandibular posterior teeth.
Therefore, teeth with a manufacturer’s reported cusp angle
of 30° or more had taller, sharper, and more well-defined cusps.
Generally, they appeared more anatomically correct. As cusp
angles were decreased, cusps became shorter, more rounded,
and less anatomically correct, giving those teeth a “worn” look.
In the late 1990s, Dr. Joseph J. Massad, of Tulsa, developed
and marketed burs specifically designed to easily shape con-
sistent, hollow ground fossae in mandibular occlusal surfaces.
His patented Lingualizing Bur System created broad, rounded
fossae with 11° of taper on all inclines (Figs 16 and 17).30
Between 1950 and 1990, a number of U.S. Patents were
granted for nonanatomic teeth that produced a lingualized
occlusion. Despite a lack of evidence that these teeth were
6 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 
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-
signs also emerged during this period. The unmarketed, 1987
design of Robert D. Carlson, of San Diego (Fig 21);36 and the
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-
tained Life Material) (Fig 23). Dentsply’s literature, by the
turn of the 21st century, recommended combinations of their
standard posterior molds to achieve a lingualized occlusion
(Table 1).42
With so many choices, Dentsply elected not to create molds
specifically designed for a mortar and pestle occlusion. By
2005, they had relabeled and recarded their 33° maxillary
anatomic posteriors with both their 22° Biostabil mandibu-
lar posteriors and 0° Monoline mandibular posteriors. They
marketed both combinations as their “Portrait IPN Lingualized
Teeth.”
Myerson Tooth Corporation
As mentioned earlier, Myerson Tooth Corporation origi-
nally recommended the combination of their 30° Duratomic
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-
anatomic teeth, and 10° ‘H’ Mold Teeth could be set against
their 0° Biomechanical Posteriors (Fig 27). Universal also of-
fered a mold specifically fashioned for a lingualized occlusion.
Their Optiform Posterior Teeth had exaggerated maxillary lin-
gual cusps and large, cupped-out mandibular fossae. These es-
thetic, easy-to-set teeth truly functioned as a mortar and pestle
occlusion. They were supplied in three sizes and six shades.
The maxillary cusp angle was advertised to be 32°, while the
inclines of the mandibular fossae were listed as 10° (Fig 28).
The Universal Dental Company offered two types of lingual-
ized/linear occlusion molds. The Glossary of Prosthodontic
Figure 22 Dr. Levin’s Lingual Bladed teeth, which were marketed by
American tooth Industries, courtesy collection of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
Terms credited William H. Goddard as the first to describe lin-
ear occlusion.1 The porcelain version of the Universal Linear
Mold consisted of individual flattened maxillary teeth where the
occlusal surfaces were slightly concave. They articulated with
individual mandibular teeth, which were similar to Dr. Frush’s
designs described below in the Swissedent section. The plastic
version of these teeth was a maxillary and mandibular block
with occlusal anatomy similar to the porcelain version except
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
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 28 Universal’s lingualized Optiform teeth, courtesy collection of
Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
Figure 29 Universal’s linear Centric Line teeth as a quadrant block in
plastic with an embedded, stainless steel cutter bar, courtesy collection
of Dr. Robert Engelmeier.
Geneva Dental produced two distinctly different poste-
rior molds specifically designed for a lingualized occlusion.
Their Condyloform Teeth paired a very esthetic 30° maxillary
anatomic occlusal with a 10° to 12° mandibular semianatomic
occlusal. The maxillary functional lingual cusps were some-
what exaggerated, while the opposing mandibular fossae had
been broadened and rounded out. They appeared as significantly
worn teeth. This was a true mortar and pestle design. Company
sales literature boasted that these teeth were a favorite of the
eminent Dr. Earl Pound49 (Fig 31). Condyloform teeth were de-
veloped by Professor Albert Gerber of the University of Zurich
in 1948 (Fig 32). The two previously mentioned patents of Dr.
Gerber were refinements of his original Condyloform design.
10 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 
Engelmeier and Phoenix
Figure 30 Dr. John P. Frush, strong proponent of linear occlusion and
designer of Swissedent’s Centrimatic Teeth.
Dr. Gerber also designed a complete denture articulator. The
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
efficient sluiceways for food clearance. Once the teeth were set,
the mandibular central ridges aligned to form a straight “cut-
ting blade” which functioned against the maxillary flat “blocks”
(Fig 35). These teeth were available in porcelain and plastic.
They remained in production through the turn of the 21st cen-
tury. Centrimatics were surprisingly esthetic and very easy to
set. Drs. Gronas and Stout52 published a comprehensive ar-
ticle concerning linear occlusion in 1974. In addition, more
recent articles have pointed out the advantages of reduced oc-
clusal forces, denture stability, and patient comfort with a linear
occlusion.53,54
Justi/American Tooth Industries
Justi offered a full line of molds, which could be mismatched in
several ways to establish a lingualized occlusion. The line in-
cluded: 33° Anatomic, 20° Semianatomic, 10° Symmetry Pos-
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
embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign centered on
complete denture esthetics, occlusion, and wear resistance.
They revised and greatly simplified their mold guide, which
only offered 0° Orthoplane, 33° Postaris, 15° Ortholingual, and
new 22° Orthotyp semi-anatomic posteriors4,59 (Fig 37). The
company recommended that a lingualized occlusion be devel-
oped by setting maxillary and mandibular Ortholingual teeth
or by setting maxillary Ortholingual teeth against mandibular
Orthoplane teeth.
Conclusion
By the early 21st century, lingualized occlusion had finally
become well established. Numerous authors considered it the
occlusion of choice for most edentulous patients, and the major
American tooth suppliers had either introduced new lingualized
molds or recommended different cross matches of teeth already
in their inventories to achieve a lingualized occlusion. Also by
that time most U.S. dental schools had introduced lingualized
occlusion in some form into their prosthodontic curriculum.
References
1. Van Blarcom CW: The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J
Prosthet Dent 1999;81:39-110
2. Parr, GR, Loft GH: The occlusal spectrum and complete
dentures. Compend Contin Ed 1982;3:241-249
3. Parr GR, Ivanhoe JR: Lingualized occlusion, an occlusion for all
reasons. Dent Clin North Am 1996;40:103-112
4. Lang BR, Lauciello FR, McGivney GP, et al: Contemporary
Complete Denture Occlusion. Amhurst, NY, Ivoclar Vivadent,
Inc., 2003, pp. 7-12
5. Ortman HR: Complete denture occlusion. In Winkler S (ed):
Essentials of Complete Denture Prosthodontics, (ed 2). Littleton,
MA, PSG Publishing, 1988, pp. 217-249
6. Lang BR: Complete denture occlusion. Dent Clin North Am
2004;48:641-665
7. Frush JP: Linear occlusion. II. Dent J 1966;35:788-794
8. Hoffman-Axthelm W: History of Dentistry. Chicago,
Quintessence Publishing Company, 1981, p. 270
9. Gysi A: Special teeth for cross-bite purposes. Dent Digest
1927;33:670–677
10. Gysi A: Artificial Molar Tooth. U.S. Patent No. 1,657,673,
January 31, 1928
11. Lüthy A: Production of Artificial Teeth. U.S. Patent No.
1,963,207, June 19, 1934
12. Honey SL: Who’s who at the convention. J Ontario Dent Assoc
1950;27:120
13. French FA: As we progress. Dent Items Interest 1935;57:730-741
14. French FA: The problem of building satisfactory dentures. J
Prosthet Dent 1954;4:769-781
15. Program Missouri-Kansas Bi-State Meeting, Lecture Program. J
Missouri State Dent Assn 1955;35:18.
16. Payne SH: A posterior set-up to meet individual requirements.
Dent Digest 1941;47:20-22
17. Payne SH: Selective occlusion. J Prosthet Dent 1955;51:301-304
18. Porter CG: The cuspless centralized occlusal pattern. J Prosthet
Dent 1955;5:313-318
19. Sosin MB: Re-evaluation of posterior tooth forms for complete
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11:55-61
20. Pound E: Personalized Denture Procedures. Anaheim, Denar
Corp., 1973, p 4.
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–14 
C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Lingualized Occlusion Development
21. Pound E: Utilizing speech to simplify a personalized denture
service. J Prosthet Dent 1970;24:586-600
22. Lauciello FR: Articulator-generated amalgam stops for complete
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:16-20.
23. Ortman HR: The role of occlusion in preservation and prevention
in complete denture prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent
1971;25:121-138
24. Murrell GA: The management of difficult lower dentures. J
Prosthet Dent 1974;32:243-250
25. Becker CM, Swoope CC, Guckes AD: Lingualized
occlusion for removable prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent
1977;38:601-608
26. Kelly E: Centric relation, centric occlusion, and posterior tooth
forms and arrangement. J Prosthet Dent 1977;37:5-11
27. The Trubyte Functional/Rational Posterior Technique. Dentsly
Technical Bulletin, No. 3312-B.
28. Zamikoff II: Steriogrammetric measurement of selected cusp
angles of artificial mandibular first molars-Master’s thesis. U of
Michigan, School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, 1970
29. Lang BR, Thompson RM: The cusp angles of artificial
mandibular first molars. J Prosthet Dent 1972;28:26-35
30. Massad JJ, Connelly ME, Davis WJ, et al: Mechanical
lingualizing posterior occlusion to enhance denture stability.
Dent Prod Reports, 2000;October: 56-61
31. Kinsley JD: Artificial Denture. United States Patent No.
2,570,562, October 9, 1951.
32. Goddard HA: Artificial Denture. United States Patent No.
2,617,192, November 11, 1952
33. Goddard HA: Artificial Dentures. United States Patent No.
3,252,220, May 24, 1966
34. Gerber A: Artificial Dentures. United States Patent No.
3,305,926, February 28, 1967
35. Gerber A: Artificial Dentures. Untied States Patent No.
4,208,794, June 24, 1980
36. Carlson RD: Denture with Chewing Insert. United States Patent
No. 4,642,052, February 10, 1987.
37. Levin B: A review of artificial posterior tooth forms including a
preliminary report on a new posterior tooth. J Prosthet Dent
1977;38:3-15
38. Clough HE, Knodle JN, Leeper SH, et al: A comparison of
lingualized occlusion and monoplane occlusion in complete
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:176-179
39. Parr GR, Loft GH: The occlusal spectrum and complete dentures.
Comp Contin Ed 1982;3:241-248
40. Lang BR, Razzoog ME: A practical approach to restoring
occlusion for edentulous patients – Part I: Guiding principles of
tooth selection. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:455-458
41. Lang BR, Razzoog ME: A practical approach to restoring
occlusion for edentulous patients – Part II: Arranging the
functional and rational mold combination. J Prosthet Dent
1983;50:599-606
42. Occlusal Options. York, PA, Dentsply International, 2002
43. Archieves. Dr. Brien R. Lang, 2005
44. Personal Communication. Dr. Brien R. Lang, 2005
45. Lang BR, Razzoog ME: Lingualized integration: Tooth molds
and an occlusal scheme for edentulous implant patients. Implant
Dent 1992;1:204-211
46. Missouri State Dental Association – 9 Annual Meeting
Program. Missouri State Dental Association, 1959
47. Frush JP, Fisher RD: Introduction to dentogenic restorations. J
Prosthet Dent 1955;5:586-595
48. Geneva Dental Archives
49. Swissedent Sales Literature
50. Archives: Condyloform Posterior Teeth, 2005.
http://www.condylator.com/en/history.htm. Accessed 1/9/17
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