DENTAL INSTRUMENTATION
The History of Articulators: A Critical
History of Articulators Based on Geometric
Theories of Mandibular Movement, Part III:
The “Balancer” Designs
Edgar N. Starcke, DDS
T HIS SERIES of articles on the “geometric
school” of mandibular movement has been
primarily concerned with those inventors whose
theories and articulator designs have had an impact
on the profession’s perception of mandibular move-
ment and occlusion. Accordingly, this article will
review the contributions of Harry Hagman and
John Needles, who were tireless investigators of
geometric principles. However, there are also those
inventors whose articulators have remained ob-
scure but have historical interest because they were
based on an even more obscure theory, or were
designed to reflect modifications of a theory that
was currently in vogue. Examples of these articula-
tors are those produced by Heinrich Schweitzer of
New York City, George M. Hollenback of Encino,
California, and Maurice J. Babb of Ardmore, Penn-
sylvania.
Maurice Babb’s instrument also represents a
generic type of articulator design that is commonly
known as a “balancer.” The term “balancer” was
coined by Harry Hagman in the 1920s for devices
that include features for determining a specific cure
of occlusion projected from a rotational center lo-
cated above the occlusional plane. Apparently,
Babb was the first to receive a patent for an artic-
ulator with this type of design, but it is doubtful
that if any were ever produced. On the other hand,
the Hagman line of “balancer” articulators, offered
with an interesting variety of accessories, was a
decided commercial success and will be covered in
detail.
Schweitzer’s “Projected Articulator”
On May 8, 1913, Ellison Hillyer of Brooklyn, NY,
presented a paper at the annual meeting of the
Correspondence to: Edgar N. Starcke, DDS,
Copyright © 2002 by The American College of Prosthodontists
1059-941X/02/1104-0000$35.00/0
doi:10.1053/jpro.2002.129835
Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol 11, No 4 (December), 2002: pp 305-320
Dental Society of New York. This paper reported
that his “valued associate” at the New York College
of Dentistry, Heinrich Schweitzer, had been inves-
tigating the subject of articulation and had devised
an articulator that “differs radically from all others
in that the rotation point of the mandible is placed
at the position of the vertebral axis.”1 Hillyer
claimed that Schweitzer had endeavored to prove
his theory geometrically by constructing a double
“Bonwill triangle” and making calculations on 3
arch sizes: 7, 10, and 13 cm (Fig 1). The triangles
were constructed with a common base. Using the
vertex of the posterior (occipital) triangle as the
rotation point, Schweitzer scribed an arc through
the condyle points. Bisecting this arc (by a line
bisecting the 2 triangles), the points of the inter-
section established the centers of circles that, when
projected, were found to pass through the center of
the foramen magnum—the vertebral axis.1
Based on his deductions, Schweitzer constructed
an articulator with the center of mandibular lateral
motion in the area of the vertebral axis (Fig 2). A
facebow was used to adjust the anterior triangle
(incisor point) to individual requirements. Jaw re-
lations were registered with an “incisor path guide”
and a “molar path guide.” Hillyer commented that
the articulator was “still in the somewhat unfin-
ished stage.”1
Even though Hillyer’s account may be the only
source available for a description of this articulator,
it has historical interest because it is based on
principles very similar to Rupert Hall’s theory and
apparently predates Hall’s work.
George Hollenback’s Articulator
According to James House,2 George M. Hollen-
back (Fig 3) based the design and functions of
his articulator on Von Spee’s concepts and
Monson’s “spherical” theory, utilizing the
4-inch radius that Monson found most applica-
305
306
Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of H.
Schweitzer’s rotation axis of the mandible. Schweitzer’s
theory was that the center of mandibular lateral rotation
was in the area of the foramen magnum. (Reprinted by
permission.1)
ble. Produced in 1928, this articulator has 2
rotation points (Fig 4). The lower rotation
point, A, represents the hinge axis; a facebow
connects with this lower point to mount the
casts. The upper rotation point, B, is the guide
for lateral movement. This articulator also pro-
vides anterior guidance in the form of an in-
cisal pin, C, and a custom guide cup, D. Mod-
eling plastic or plaster was used to hand carve
Figure 3. George M. Hollenback, DDS. (Reprinted by
permission.3)
gothic-arch paths, which were determined by
check bites.2 As discussed later, the idea of a
universal joint for lateral mandibular move-
ment combined with some type of controlling
incisal guide mechanism was also expressed by
Harry Hagman and John Needles.
Maurice J. Babb’s “Balancer” Design
Articulator
In 1918, Maurice Babb received a patent for an
articulator with a design that closely resembled
Figure 2. Schweitzer’s “Projected Articula-
tor” with mounted casts showing the molar
and incisal path guides in place. (Reprinted
by permission.1)
 307

Figure 4. George Hollenback’s articulator.

Hollenback described it as having 2 rotation
points, a lower one for hinge movement (A)
and an upper one for lateral movement (B).
Harry W. Hahn of Los Angeles, California,
manufactured this instrument in about
1928, although less than 20 were produced.
It was not patented. (Reprinted from
House, 1970, p. 141.2)

that of Harry Hagman’s “Balancer” patented more

than a decade later (Fig 5). Generally, this type of
articulator (as well as condylar articulators with
optional features providing “geometric” solutions)
was based primarily on Monson’s “spherical” the-
ory. Although it was not specifically stated, Rupert
Hall’s “conical” theory was likely the basis for
Babb’s articulator. In the patent letter description,
the rotational center for the “upper jaw model

Figure 5. The Maurice J. Babb Articulator, 1918.

This articulator was highly adjustable to “accommo-
date individual requirements.” The patent drawings
reveal that the rotational mechanism allowed “arcu-
ate” movement of the upper cast holder in an ante-
rior/posterior direction but not in a lateral direction.
Any lateral movement would have had to come from
horizontal rotation of rod 20 in sleeve 17. (Reprinted Figure 6. Harry C. Hagman. (Reprinted by permis-
from the 1918 U.S. Patent.4) sion.5)
308

Figure 7. (A) Hagman Balancer. (Reprinted from the 1929 U.S. Patent.6) (B) Hagman Balancers shown in an early
advertisement. The Hagman Balancers were produced by the Cleveland Dental Manufacturing Company until the early
1930s, after which they were produced by the Hagman Balancer Company. (Reprinted by permission from Dent Surv
1930;6:144.)

Figure 8. (A) Frontal view of the Balancer applied to a human skull. This shows the concept of an occlusal arc guide
in position conforming to an ideal occlusal plane. (Reprinted by permission.8) (B) Hagman Balancer. Lateral view of the
Balancer applied to a human skull illustrating that the occlusal plane is “in line” with the condyles. (Reprinted by
permission from Dent Surv 1930;6:118.)
 309

Figure 9. The 3 basic models of the Hagman Balancer: (A) the chrome-plated “Deluxe Balancer, (B) the “Junior
Balancer,” a cadmium-plated economy model, and (C) the “Special Deluxe Model R,” with an extended hinge axis and
adjustable functioning head. (A and B, from the collection of the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston
Dental Branch; C, from the collection of the Houston Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dental Service.)

holder” is located at a position above the incisal
point on a line oblique to the occlusal plane: “The
pivotal point (41) is arranged to oscillate, describ-
ing a geodesic line about the surface of a cone, as in
the natural grinding movements in the human
mouth.” The hinge axis (28) is on a level with the
occlusal plane (31).4
There has been some speculation concerning
the fate of Babb’s articulator. The design was
quite adequate for this type of articulator, and
it was well constructed by the S. S. White
Dental Manufacturing Co., a leading producer
of dental equipment. Why, then, has it become
merely a footnote in the history of articulators?
After all, other instruments of similar design
were very successful over many years. Produc-
tion issues associated with World War I may
have limited its adoption, but the more likely
reason for its failure was simply a lack of
promotion. James House has suggested that it
is not enough to develop and produce a well-
designed, well-made articulator to gain wide
acceptance by the profession; history has shown
that aggressive salesmanship and promotion,
usually by the inventor himself on the “speak-
ing circuit,” has been the key to the successful
marketing of new articulator designs.2 Babb
assigned the patent to the S. S. White Co., with
whom he obviously had a business arrange-
ment, possibly as an employee. In any case,
Babb himself did not promote this articulator.
A Successful Venture: The Hagman
“Balancer”
In 1929, Harry C. Hagman (Fig 6) of Minneap-
olis, MN, received the first of 2 patents for the
“Balancer” articulator, a design concept that
he had been developing since the early 1920s.5-7
Introduced in 1925 (Fig 7A), the Hagman Bal-
310

ancer was designed according to Monson’s

spherical theory. Hagman believed that the
mandible functioned in an arc (arcuate move-
ments) from centric relation, as determined by
the curve of occlusion of the mandibular teeth,
and that all movements of the human jaw can
be produced in an articulator functioning from
a single point of rotation. Therefore, the Bal-
ancer articulator was designed to reproduce all
ranges of movement so as to determine and
restore the mandibular path of occlusion.8 The
operating mechanism of the Balancer (Fig 7B)
was a single ball and socket (universal) joint
called the “functioning head” (C), from which
was suspended a pendulum (H) holding the
maxillary cast mounting plate (62) by vertical
sleeve (63). Hagman explained that when the casts
are mounted in the Balancer, the “functioning
head”* (representing the spherical center of rota-
tion) is located about 4 inches directly above the
occlusal plane (Fig 8A). In this way, the occlusal
plane forms the base of an isosceles triangle with
the functioning head as the apex. The hinge is
located to be “in line with” or concentric to the
occlusal path (Fig 8B).9
The Hagman Balancer was well received and
was popular with dental practitioners for many
years. It is true that Hagman aggressively pro-
moted his products, but he was also very per-
ceptive and eventually incorporated the versa- Figure 10. Hagman Junior Balancer. (Reprinted from
tility demanded by the marketplace into the the 1938 U.S. Patent.7)
Balancer line of articulators. This versatility is
demonstrable in the number of techniques
“plasterless” feature; that is, the casts were
(and, naturally, the various accessories pro-
mounted with clamps and thumbscrews (see Fig
vided) for assessing the arcs of occlusion and
7B). However, this feature was soon replaced with
for mounting casts in the instrument.
removable cast mounting plates. The “Balancer
Several “improvements” in design were made
Junior,” which appeared in 1934, was a smaller,
over the years; and eventually, Hagman produced 3
simpler, less expensive version of the “Deluxe”
distinct models (Fig 9), each designed to perform
model (Figs 9B and 10). Casts were mounted di-
the same basic functions but obviously intended to
rectly to the “Junior Balancer,” which had no re-
meet a particular demand of the marketplace. The
movable cast mounting plates. For those clinicians
original Balancer would ultimately become known
who insisted on using a facebow, the “Special De-
as the “Deluxe Balancer.” It is likely that the ear-
luxe Balancer Model R” had an extended hinge axis
liest models (as patented) were produced with the
and adjustable functional head (Fig 9C). This
model could be purchased only through special
*Hagman confused the issue somewhat by comparing the order.†
universal movement of the “functioning head” with Broomell’s
description of the ginglimus-diarthodial function of the temporo-
mandibular joint. Even though Hagman was trying to establish †Perhaps some of those who purchased the Model R really
some validity for the notion that the functioning head provided believed that they knew what a single extended hinge axis was. They
for all except the hinge movements of the mandible, there is may have even believed that they knew: “What is the sound of 1
really no correlation between the 2. hand clapping?”
 311

Figure 11. (A) A Hagman “Deluxe Balancer” with a 4-inch occlusal arc guide attached to the functioning head and
related to mandibular occlusion rims. (B) A Hagman “Junior Balancer” with a 4-inch arc guide applied to mandibular
occlusion rim for mounting the mandibular cast. (C) An early model of the Hagman “Deluxe Balancer” with a mounted
mandibular cast and the denture teeth set to conform to a 4-inch arc guide. (D) An early model of the Hagman “Deluxe
Balancer” with the maxillary teeth arranged to articulate with the mandibular teeth set by the 4-inch arc guide.

Harry Hagman believed that “the ‘Balancer’
articulator functioned similarly to the natural jaw
and should not be limited to any one mounting
technique.”9 Therefore, each of the “Balancer”
models was supplied with special accessories to
accommodate most dentists’ preferences for
mounting casts. These were the “plane-line,” flat-
plane guide, and mounting jig (occlusal level) tech-
niques; the use of the curved occlusal plane arc
guides and dividers; and, of course, the facebow
attachment (Model R only). The curved occlusal arc
guide plates and the dividers were also used for
assessing the occlusal curvature of the mandibular
teeth or occlusion rim.
Occlusal Arc Guides
These metal guides represent spherical seg-
ments with radii of 2, 3, or 4 inches attached to
312

Figure 12. Deluxe Balancer with dividers applied to a

dentulous mandibular cast. (From the collection of Uni-
versity of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston
Dental Branch.)

the functioning head extending from the pen-
dulum. The lower cast was compared to succes-
sive arcs, and the one closest to the natural
occlusal curve was selected (Fig 11A). Mount-
ing the casts involved setting the mandibular
cast against the mounting plate so that the
center of the pendulum bisected the center of
the curvature of the occlusal plane. With the
mandibular cast supported in position by clay
or wax, the maxillary cast was related to the
mandibular cast and secured with plaster to the
maxillary cast holder. The clay or wax support
was removed and replaced with plaster to
Figure 13. These drawings of a Junior Balancer illus-
trate the simple plane line mounting technique. The
Junior Balancer was used for one patient at a time
because the casts were mounted directly to the lower
stage and upper cast support.
mount the mandibular cast. For mounting
edentulous casts and fabricating complete den-
tures, either the plane-line method (for mono-
plane occlusion) or an arc guide could be ap-
plied to mount the mandibular cast (Fig 11B).
The maxillary cast was mounted in centric
relation to the mandibular cast, and the man-

Figure 14. The Balancer

Flat Plane Guide (A). This
device is for mounting the
mandibular cast when a
monoplane occlusion is
planned (B). Standardized
measurements are used to
relate the height of the ret-
romolar pad (11B) and the
depth of the normal anterior
sulcus (10B) to the height
of the occlusal plane. (Re-
printed with permission.9)

dibular teeth were arranged to conform to the
arc guide (Fig 11C). The maxillary teeth were
then set to the mandibular teeth (Fig 11D).
The Dividers
A mandibular cast was placed on the lower stage of
the balancer, supported with clay or wax, and cen-
tered as previously described. A pair of special
6-inch dividers was set to an approximate radius of
5-1/4 inches, and the curved end of the dividers was
inserted into the depression of the top screw of the
Balancer. The opposite (straight) end served as a
guide to determine the curve or height of the
occlusal plane and to assess what modifications are
necessary (Fig 12).
It is interesting to note that Hagman, perhaps in
an attempt to boost the credibility of this proce-
dure, expressed the notion that the use of dividers
for mounting casts “injects a scientific element in
establishing the level of the occlusal plane and in
determining the amount of extrusion and intrusion
of the individual teeth from personal diagnosis, to
arrive at an ideal occlusal plane.”9
The Plane-Line Mounting Technique
This procedure was suggested for diagnostic casts
and for complete denture construction where
monoplane occlusion was planned. Using the stan-
dard cast supports, occlusally related casts were
simply mounted with the occlusal plane oriented
parallel to and midway between the cast holders
(Fig 13).
The Flat Plane Guide
This accessory was another mounting device in-
tended primarily to establish the position of the
occlusal plane for complete denture monoplane
setups (Fig 14A). The Flat Plane Guide consists of
a flat horizontal plate (F.1) attached to the func-
tioning head by a central vertical standard (F.2).
The plate was adjustable both vertically (F.7) and
horizontally in the slot (F.8). The heels of the plate
were angulated to rest on the retromolar pads (11),
and an incisal depth pin (F.4) determined the
height of the incisal rim (Fig 14B). General average
measurements were used from the crest of the
ridge or normal peripheral border to establish the
incisal height.9
313
The Occlusal Level and Mounting Jig
This device was suggested by Dr. E. T. Tinker8 for
mounting related casts on the Balancer in the same
relative position or level as in the mouth and as a
guide to determine the level of the occlusal plane
for the occlusion rims or for natural teeth (Fig
15A). The occlusal level consists of a vertical rod
(V) to which is attached an adjustable bitefork (C)
and an attachment (AT) for securing the vertical
rod to the Balancer. Using the adjustable bitefork,
the occlusal level was applied using standard meth-
ods, that is, with either an occlusal index or occlu-
sion rims (Fig 15B, C, and D). The vertical rod was
set so that it lined up with the center of the face and
was oriented vertically in both facial and profile
perspectives (Fig 16 A and B). The vertical rod was
then placed into the attachment, and the bitefork
(with the related occlusal records) was centered
between the upper and lower cast holders and
secured in the Balancer. This device could be used
to mount casts arbitrarily without the patient.
The Facebow Attachment
The Special Deluxe Balancer Model R featured a
posterior crossbar, also known as an extended hinge
axis, for attachment of a facebow or hinge axis
recorder (Fig 17A). The functioning head of the
Model R was adjustable in an anterior-posterior
direction to ensure that the pendulum was always
centered directly over the occlusal plane. Figure
17B is an illustration from a 1950 price list demon-
strating the use of a mounting board to relate the
Hagman Hinge Axis Recorder to a Deluxe Balancer
Model R.
The Balancer Natural Path Recorder and
Gothic-Arch Tracing Device
These intraoral and extraoral tracing devices
were provided for “those who desire to record
the influences or characteristics of condylar
movements, muscles or inherent habits of func-
tion.”9 The technique for recording the natural
path included both devices and was a novel
approach for producing a custom incisal guide
table. After the casts were mounted in the
Balancer with any of the preferred methods,
new record bases were constructed, and the
Balancer Gothic Arch Tracing Device was
314

Figure 15. The Balancer Occlusal Level and Mounting Jig (A). This device consists of a vertical rod with attached
adjustable bite mark and is used for either dentulous or edentulous patients (B, C, D). As a mounting jig intended for
leveling and centering the casts in the Balancer, it was probably used more often without the patient. (Reprinted by
permission.9)

mounted on the casts (Fig 18). Soft wax was
placed in the maxillary tracing cup (T1) for the
patient to generate protrusive and lateral oc-
clusal pathways with mandibular tracer point
(T2). The wax was removed from the cup, cast
in a silver or other suitable metal, and returned
to the tracing cup to provide a stable and
well-defined record of the patient’s natural
function (Fig 18C). These metal intraoral
record paths were followed to hand-generate
wax pathways in the Balancer Natural Path
Recorder (Fig 19). The Recorder consists of an
incisal pin (PR1) with a cone-shaped end (PR5)
that can move within the incisal wax receptacle
(PR2). As with the intraoral wax record, the
extra-oral wax record was cast in metal. For
dentulous patients, this mechanism provided
the operator with a custom incisal guide table.

Figure 16. Applying the Occlusal Level. The prongs of the bite fork were adjustable so that the standard could be set
vertically in both the facial (A) and profile (B) positions. (Reprinted by permission.9)
The “Inclinator” Attachment
This mechanical incisal guide table could be inter-
changed with the Natural Path Receptacle. It was
designed to be a controlling “gothic arch” incisal
guide with adjustments for protrusive and lateral
excursions (Fig 20).
The Balancer Clasp Surveyor
All models of the Balancer provided for attachment
of the Clasp Surveyor (Fig 21) by simply removing
the upper cast holder, locking the pendulum with
setscrew A, and securing it to the Balancer with
screw E. This device was a “broken arm” type with
a spring-loaded marker for automatic return of the
stylus to the original position when released.
Dr. John Needles’s First Articulator
John Walter Needles of Pueblo, CO, is probably
best known for his functionally generated path
technique known as the “Needles-House chew-
in.”2 He also developed a split-cast method for
testing the adaptability of articulators12 and
designed an incisal control system as the pri-
mary guidance for lateral mandibular move-
ment. He is also remembered for his collabo-
ration with Milus M. House on various aspects
of articulator design, including a rotary grind-
er.2 Needles also produced 2 articulators.13 The
315
first, and the only 1 that was patented (in
1921),14 was the “adaptable spherical articula-
tor” (balancer-type design), which also fea-
tured a “guiding mechanism that restricted its
motion to a definite incisal path.”15
Why did Needles choose this hybrid design? He
had been convinced that Gysi’s theories on condylar
movement and the relationship of the “gothic-arch”
incisal path to his concept of mandibular rotation
centers were conclusive.16 However, by about 1920,
Needles had also become persuaded by what he re-
ferred to as “the fundamental truth” of George Mon-
son’s “spherical” theory. Its appeal to him was that “it
fitted in with the observed conditions almost per-
fectly.”15 Needles faced a paradox: 2 seemingly con-
flicting theories on the nature of mandibular move-
ment, each believed to be fundamentally sound.
Could Dr. Monson’s Spherical Theory and the con-
cepts of Dr. Gysi be combined in a practical artic-
ulator?
Needles’s initial idea was to design an artic-
ulator based on the spherical theory but to
modify it so as to leave the size of the sphere
variable, to conform to different patients
(Fig 22). It was accepted that the average
radius of the sphere was 4 inches, but that it
frequently varied in both directions. Therefore,
if the rotation center or “universal joint” (axle
30) could be brought forward by adjusting the
assembly (26) along the rotational axis (threaded
316

Figure 17. (A) The Special Deluxe Model R Balancer. This model, with both the extended hinge axis and adjustable
functioning head features, illustrates how the facebow is applied and the head adjusted to assure that the cast is
centered directly below the pendulum. (Balancer, from the collection of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center Dental
Service; Snow Facebow, from the collection of the author.) (B) Special Deluxe Model R with extended hinge axis. The
Hagman Hinge Axis Recorder is in place using a mounting board. (Reprinted by permission.10)
 317

Figure 18. (A) Balancer Gothic-Arch (Intraoral) Tracer. The parts include the maxillary tracing cup (T1) for retaining
an aluminum disk (T4) for Gothic arch tracings or wax for generating a natural path. Also pictured are the tracer point
(T2) and tripod table (T3). (B) The Balancer Gothic-Arch Tracer mounted on the casts with record bases. (C) For
natural path tracings, the wax is removed from the cups, cast in a silver alloy, and returned to the cup, creating a durable
patient-generated (intraoral) record that is traced when producing the hand-generated natural path (extraoral) tracing.
(Reprinted by permission.10)

shaft A), then the center of the universal joint
could be adjusted to be opposite the incisal point.
If the articulator was then adjusted by means of
the incisal pin (37) and guide mechanism (8), so
that the universal joint was in a plane vertically
above the deepest position of the curve of occlu-
sion, it would be in approximately the correct
position. Needles’s gothic arch incisal guide
mechanism8 was designed as a primary guiding
system with the idea that “Gysi’s rotation center
represents one point on a rotational axis passing
through the center of the sphere. This rotation
center could be considered as a pole located on
the surface of the sphere and that rotation about
one of these axes corresponds to the working bite
on that side.”15
Another idea to emerge from Needles’s concept
of mandibular movement and approach to articula-
tor design was his “functionally generated path”
method for recording jaw relations. This technique
involved shaping modeling plastic occlusion rims to
conform to the surface of a sphere. The rims were
tested in the mouth and altered so that they re-
mained in contact while the patient executed all
318

Figure 19. The Balancer Natural Path (extra-oral) Tracer. (Reprinted by permission.11)
 319

lateral and protrusive excursions. Needles reported

that “tracings of the actual masticatory movements
are recorded on the lower rim by embedding three
pins‡ in the upper rim. The [resulting 3-dimen-
sional tracings] furnish a means of knowing when
we have secured a correct central occlusion . . . and
also afford the data necessary for adjusting an
articulator.”15
The spherical shape of the occlusion rims
could be formed using a template. Indeed, this
was the most commonly used method for many
years. Needles, however, was initially con-
cerned with determining the position of the
center of the sphere by accurately locating the
position of the surface of the occlusion rims (i.e.,
surface of the sphere) in the articulator. To
accomplish this, Needles designed an arcuate knife
that “swings on its . . . axis passing through the
center of the sphere. If the distance from its rota-
tional center is taken as its radius and the knife
blade is ‘warped’ to [conform to a segment of an arc

‡The original functionally generated path technique in-

Figure 20. The Balancer Inclinator Attachment. This is
essentially a mechanical incisal guide mechanism that
was interchangeable with the Natural Path Recorder.
(Reprinted by permission.9)
volved the use of 3 tracing pins, 1 in the midline and 2 in the
areas of the second molars. Triangular-shaped tracing studs
were created for the “Needles-House Chew-in” procedure. Four
of these studs were used, 2 in the second molar areas, and 2 in
the canine areas, replacing the 1 in the midline.

Figure 21. The Balancer

Clasp Surveyor Attachment
(B). This is a broken arm de-
vice with a spring-loaded
marker. (Reprinted by per-
mission.9)
320

This brief look at how “geometric” theories of

Figure 22. John Needles’ Adjustable Spherical Articula-
tor. (Reprinted from the 1921 U.S. patent.13)
of] its radius . . . and if the knife is adjusted to pass
through the incisor point [of the lower occlusion
rim], the articulator is approximately adjusted.”17
mandibular movement influenced articulator design
will be concluded in the next issue of the Journal of
Prosthodontics.
References
1. Hillyer E: The development of the anatomic articulator.
Dent Cosmos 1913;55:989-1005
2. House JE: The design and use of dental articulators in the
United States from 1840-1970. Master’s thesis, University of
Indiana, 1970, pp 114-142; 180-183
3. George M. Hollenback, DDS (portrait for essayist advertise-
ment). Dent Surv 1929;5:64
4. Babb MJ: Articulator. US Patent No. 1,285,896, November
26, 1918
5. Promotional campaign for pledged laboratories. Dent Lab
Rev 1956;31:36
6. Hagman HC: Dental Articulator. US Patent No. 1,736,006,
November 19, 1929
7. Hagman HC, Lagaard AST: Dental Articulator. US Patent
No. 2,119,579, June 7, 1938
8. Hagman HC (ed): Dental Origins. Minneapolis, MN, Harry
C. Hagman, 1973, pp 1-179
9. Hagman HC: A Manual on Articulation. Minneapolis, MN,
Hagman Balancer Co., 1953, pp 1-72
10. Nichols IG (ed): Prosthetic Dentistry. St. Louis, MO, Mosby,
1978, p 190
11. Hagman HC: Hagman Balancer Company price list. Min-
neapolis, MN, 1950
12. Hall RE: An analysis of the development of the articulator.
J Am Dent Assoc 1930;17:3-50
13. House MM: Studies in prosthesis. J Am Dent Assoc 1931;
18:827-852
14. Needles JW: Articulator. US Patent No. 1,368,408, February
15, 1921
15. Needles JW: The problem of articulation. J Am Dent Assoc
1924;11:1220-1224
16. Starcke EN: The history of articulators: Pursuing the evolu-
tion of the incisal-pin and guide, Part II. J Prosthodont
2001;10:113-121
17. Needles JW: The mechanics of spherical articulation. J Am
Dent Assoc 1922;9:866-881

Figure 23. (A) John Nee-

dles’ Adjustable Spherical
Articulator with the arcuate
blade in position to carve the
surface of the mandibular oc-
clusion rim into a spherical
shape. (B) A view of the ar-
cuate blade and a chart for
adjusting the curvature of
the blade. The cutting blade
is a metal band blade that
can be “warped” by moving
the center jackscrew in and
out. (Reprinted by permis-
sion.16)