## 3 Results  
The measurements of the parameters for all 30 patients (60 TMJ) were collated and subjected to statistical analysis. The aim was to obtain values of the guidance angles during protrusive movement, mouth opening, and the Bennett angle, as determined by digital axiography (Table 1), and test the correlation between the averaged values from both joints during protrusion and mouth opening, as well as the correlation between the Bennett angle and the height of the articular fossa (Table 2), which are presented in the tables below.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Patient**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Protrusion**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Opening**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Right** & **Left** & **Right** & **Left** \\ \hline
**1** & 53 & 53 & 50 & 51 \\ \hline
**2** & 63 & 66 & 64 & 71 \\ \hline
**3** & 48 & 70 & 49 & 51 \\ \hline
**4** & 71 & 66 & 83 & 89 \\ \hline
**5** & 53 & 59 & 69 & 77 \\ \  
The sagittal condylar guidance angles recorded via electronic axiography showed distinct profiles for protrusive movements and mouth opening. During mandibular protrusion, the condylar guidance angles averaged approximately 56-57\({}^{\circ}\) (mean of \(\sim\)56.6\({}^{\circ}\) when combining both joints), with a relatively narrow dispersion (SD \(\sim\)6-7\({}^{\circ}\) per side). Most individual protrusive angles clustered in the 50-65\({}^{\circ}\) range, indicating a fairly consistent distribution across the 30 subjects. The median protrusive angle was around 56-58\({}^{\circ}\), closely matching the mean, suggesting a roughly symmetrical (normal) distribution without strong skew. In contrast, during full mouth opening, condylar guidance angles tended to be slightly steeper on average (mean \(\sim\)59.9\({}^{\circ}\) for the averaged bilateral values). The distribution was broader: values ranged from the mid-40s up to nearly 90\({}^{\circ}\) (see Table 1). The group mean for opening angles was about 3-4 degrees higher than for protrusion, and the standard deviation was larger (approximately 9-11\({}^{\circ}\) for individual joint measurements, versus \(\sim\)6-7\({}^{\circ}\) in protrusion), indicating greater variability. The median opening angle (\(\sim\)59-61\({}^{\circ}\) depending on side) was slightly lower than the mean, reflecting the influence of a few high-angle measurements on the average. Overall, the protrusive condylar paths showed more uniform angles, whereas the opening movements exhibited a wider spread of values.  
These data reveal a trend where protrusive excursions produce more consistent condylar guidance angles, while maximal opening can yield both moderate and very steep  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Patients**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Protrusion**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Opening**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Right** & **Left** & **Right** & **Left** \\ \hline
**15** & 65 & 65 & 62 & 53 \\ \hline
**16** & 53 & 44 & 56 & 43 \\ \hline
**17** & 49 & 58 & 60 & 64 \\ \hline
**18** & 57 & 57 & 60 & 59 \\ \hline
**19** & 47 & 45 & 72  
condylar paths in different individuals. Notably, the majority of opening angle measurements still fell within a moderate range (roughly 50-70\({}^{\circ}\) for most participants), but the presence of several higher values increased the overall mean. All recorded sagittal guidance angles in this young adult sample were well above the textbook \"average\" articulator setting (typically \(\sim\)30\({}^{\circ}\)), which highlights that the method of measurement (electronic axiography with Frankfort horizontal reference) and the full range of motion captured can result in larger numerical angles. This underscores the importance of using individualized measurements, as group mean values alone may not represent any given patient's condylar inclination accurately (Figure 7).