THE EFFECT OF BONWILL’S

TRIANGLE ON COMPLETE
DENTURES
FINN TENGS CHRISTENSEN, L.D.S.
Stavanger, Norway
(1959)

PRESENTED BY
DR. JENNIFER VINCENT
PG 1ST YEAR
DEPARTMENT OF PROSTHODONTICS
Variations in the size of Bonwill’s triangle influence the
cusp angulation for complete dentures.
According to Bonwill,’ the length of each side, with few
exceptions, is equal to 10 cm. (exactly 4 inches).
Bonwill based his theory on measurements of 6,000
skulls and 4,000 living persons. However, the correct-
ness of his theory has been questioned.
Bosse measured 500 jaws and found a marked variation
in the distance between the condyles. He found an
average distance of 96 mm. by measuring from the
middle of the mesial surface of one condyle to the lateral
surface of the other.
Choquet measured 149 mandibles and found that the
external distance between the condyles was between 138
and 97 mm. and the internal distance was between 96
and 65 mm.
 Asymmetry

Choquet mentions the asymmetric position of the condyles

Frahms also maintains the asymmetry of the condyles,

WelcherG who found only 2 symmetric condyles in 50

mandibles.

Amoedo’ found the distance between the condyles varied

from 7 to 13 cm.
Wilson examined 300 jaws and found 6 per cent in
accordance with Bonwill’s theory.
However, these men measured jaws on dried skulls, and
dried bones change form.
Welcher” demonstrated the change in form by dipping
dried mandibles in water. The intercondylar distance of
one mandible increased more than 10 mm. during a
period of one hour in water. After drying again for some
weeks, the distance decreased about 13 mm. The
intercondylar size of the mandible was also about 3 mm.
less than before the beginning of the experiment.
The result of Bonwill’s measurements on living persons is
not sufficient as scientific proof, and the average size of
Bonwill’s triangle is still confused.
However, the construction of average articulators is
generally in accordance with Bonwill’s theory, and
Monson’s pyramid is based also on Bonwill’s triangle.
In this article the average size of Bonwill’s triangle is
used, and it is assumed to be an equilateral triangle, the
angles of which are formed, respectively, by the incisal
point and the two condyles.
The sides (S in Fig. 1) are assumed to be 100 mm. in length.
The height of the triangle (a in Fig. 1) is consequently equal
to 100 mm. x sine 60 degrees. (86.6)
The average gauge of Bonwill’s triangle is otherwise of
less importance since the intention is to clarify how
variations in the length of the sides (height) of Bonwill’s
triangle exert influence on the cusp angulation.

Stated specifically: What is the effect on cusp angulation

when the distance from the incisal point to the condylar
axis is altered ?
Christensens Angle
In this investigation the condylar guide inclination, the
incisal guide inclination, and the cusp angulation are
angles in a sagittal plane or projections in the median
plane.
The calculation of the cusp angulation for complete
dentures is based on the Christensen phenomenon and
depends on the size of the Christensen angle.
In this investigation the condylar guide inclination, the
incisal guide inclination, and the cusp angulation are
angles in a sagittal plane or projections in the median
plane.
The calculation of the cusp angulation for complete
dentures is based on the Christensen phenomenon and
depends on the size of the Christensen angle.
When the incisal guide inclination is equal to the
condylar guide inclination, the cusp angulation has to be
of the same size, independent of the size of Bonwill’s
triangle (Fig. 2).
By varying the compensating curve, the cusp angulation
may be altered in accordance with Hanau’s Quint or
Thielemann’s Formula of Articulation.
The theory of the Christensen angle is shown in Fig. 3,
and the relationship between the height of Bonwill’s
triangle (a1a2a3) and the corresponding Christensen
angle (ɣ1ɣ2ɣ3) is shown in Fig. 4.
It can be seen that the Christensen angle (ɣ) decreases if
the height in Bonwill’s triangle (a) increases. The size of
the Christensen angle increases from 0.3 to 3.53 degrees
by an alteration of the condylar guide inclination from 5
to 60 degrees during 5 mm. of protrusion.il It turns upon
small angles (ɣ1ɣ2ɣ3). The ratio between small angles is
equal to the ratio of the sine to the angles. Therefore,
where a, and a2 are the respective heights of Bonwill’s
triangles, we get the following ratio:
The height in Bonwill’s triangle is proportional to the size
of the sides (see Fig. 1 where a = s X sine 60 degrees). In
consequence the Christensen angle (y) is inversely
proportional to the height (sides) of Bonwill’s triangle.
The formula for the Christensen angle is:

In a this formula a is the height in Bonwill’s triangle (see

Fig. 1 ), 4 is the Balkwill angle (LAD, Fig. 1), p is the
condylar guide inclination, y is the Christensen angle, and
p is the length of protrusion of the mandible.
The effect on the Christensen angle of varying the
length of the sides of Bonwill’s triangle is seen in
Table I. Table I and its graphic reproduction (Fig. 5)
confirm the conclusions based on Fig. 4. The
Christensen angle decreases with an increase of
Bonwill’s triangle.
At a condylar guide inclination of 30 degrees, the
Christensen angle is 1.85 degrees when the length of the
side of Bonwill’s triangle is 90 mm. When the length of
the side is 110 mm., the Christensen angle is 1.51
degrees. On complete dentures the cusp angulation (E) is
proportional to the Christensen angle. Consequently, in
the formula:

the Christensen angle ɣ. can be replaced with the cusp

angulation (E), resulting in
CONCLUSION

With the conditions as specified, the degree of the cusp

angulation for complete dentures is inversely
proportional to the height (sides) of Bonwill’s triangle.
REFERENCES
Bonwill, W. G.: The Scientific Articulation of the Human Teeth as Founded on
Geo- metrical, Mathematical, and Mechanical Laws, D. Items Interest 21:617-
643, 873- 880, 1899.
Bosse, U.: Beitrige zur Anatomie des Manschlichen Unterkiefers (Diss.),
Verlag : Otto Kiimmel. K&igsberg in Pr. 1901.
Choquet, J. : Le Triangle equilateral de Bonwill, L’odontologie 41:307-312, 1909.
Choquet, J. : AsymCtrie condylienne du maxillaire inferieur, L’odontologie
51:5-8, 1914.
Welcher, H. : Die Zugehorigkeit eines Unterkiefers zu einem Bestimmten
Schidel, Arch. f. Anthrop. 27:37-106, 1902.
Frahm, F. W.: Studies of the Human Masticatory Apparatus and Its Relations
to the Prosthodontist, and Treatment of the Same, D. Cosmos 56:533-550,
1914.
Amoedo,. 0. : Simplification dans l’enregistrement de la trajectoire
condylienne, Revue trrmestrielle suisse d’odontologie 23:157-175, 1913.
Wilson, G. H. : The Anatomy and Physics of the Temporomandibular Joint,
Bull. Nat. D. A. 8:236-241. 1921.
Lundstrom, A.: V’ilka Forandringar ha Intriffat Infriga om Kakarnas Storlek
och Oc- clusronsfijrhHllanden under Historisk Tid? Svensk. T. T. 39:391-
424, 1946 (with English summary, p. 420).
Monson, G. S.: Occlusion as Applied to Crown and Bridge Work, Bull. Nat.
D. A. 7:399-413, 1920.
Christensen, F. T. : Cusp Angulation for Complete Dentures, J. PROS. DEN.
8 :910-923, 1958.
Hanau, R. L. : Full Denture Prosthesis : Intraoral Technique for Hanau
Articulator Model H, ed. 4, Buffalo, 1930, the author, p. 37. Thielemann, K. :
p. 24. B