Citation Information :
Jyotirmay, Singh SK, Adarsh K, Sinha A, Sharan S. Evaluation of Size of the Condyle in Vertical and Anteroposterior Skeletal Conditions with the Help of Cone-beam Computed Tomography. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (2):189-193.
Aim: Evaluation of size of the condyle in various vertical and anteroposterior skeletal conditions with the help of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Methods and materials: In this study, 266 study participants were included consisting of 112 males and 144 females. The study participants were categorized as class I when −1° ≤ A point–nasion–B point angle (ANB) < 4°, class II when ANB ≥ 4°, and class III when ANB < −1°. The study participants were categorized as hypodivergent when the mandibular plane (MP) ≤ 23°, normodivergent when 23° < MP < 30°, and hyperdivergent when MP ≥ 30°. CBCT images were obtained for each subject and measurement of length, width, and height of the condyle was carried out. The data were collected and analysis of covariance test (ANCOVA) was used for statistical analysis. Statistical significance was adjusted at p ≤ 0.05.
Results: The size of the condyle was smaller in females. The length of the condyle was similar in different anteroposterior and vertical positions with no significant difference. The width of the condyle and the height of the condyle were greatest in class III anteroposterior condition while they were lowest in class I condition. The width and height of the condyle were greatest in hypodivergent condition while they were lowest in hyperdivergent condition.
Conclusion: It was concluded that the height and width of the condyle vary considerably in different vertical and anteroposterior skeletal patterns and the size of the condyle was smaller in women as compared with men.
Clinical significance: The position of the condyle and its morphology are important features that constitute an important part of orthodontic treatment planning. The skeletal pattern of the patient has also an important effect on the diagnosis, planning of treatment, and prognosis in the orthodontic treatment.
Bou Assi S, Macari A, Hanna A, et al. Cephalometric evaluation of maxillary incisors inclination, facial, and growth axes in different vertical and sagittal patterns: an original study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2020;10(3):292–299. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_60_20.
Ponces MJ, Tavares JP, Lopes JD, et al. Comparison of condylar displacement between three biotypological facial groups by using mounted models and a mandibular position indicator. Korean J Orthod 2014;44(6):312–319. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.6.312.
Vitral RWF, Telles CdeS, Fraga MR, et al. Computed tomography evaluation of temporomandibular joint alterations in patients with class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions: condyle-fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126(1):48–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.06.012.
Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR, Vitral RW. Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in Class I malocclusion patients: condylar symmetry and condyle-fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(2):192–198. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.032.
Schudy FF. Treatment of adult midline deviation by condylar repositioning. J Clin Orthod 1996;30(6):343–347.
Alqefari J, Albelaihi R, Elmoazen R, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of the oral health-related quality of life undergoing fixed orthodontic therapy. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2019;9(1):72–76. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_350_18.
Tecco S, Saccucci M, Nucera R, et al. Condylar volume and surface in Caucasian young adult subjects. BMC Med Imaging 2010;10:28. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2342-10-28.
Custodio W, Gomes SG, Faot F, et al. Occlusal force, electromyographic activity of masticatory muscles and mandibular flexure of study participants with different facial types. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19(4):343–349. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572011005000008.
Stringert HG, Worms FW. Variations in skeletal and dental patterns in patients with structural and functional alterations of the temporomandibular joint: a preliminary report. Am J Orthod 1986;89(4):285–297. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(86)90050-3.
Burke G, Major P, Glover K, et al. Correlations between condylar characteristics and facial morphology in Class II preadolescent patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114(3):328–336. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70216-1.
Cohlmia JT, Ghosh J, Sinha PK, et al. Tomographic assessment of temporomandibular joints in patients with malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1996;66(1):27–35. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1996)066<0027:TAOTJI>2.3.CO;2.
Gianelly AA, Petras JC, Boffa J. Condylar position and Class II deep-bite, no-overjet malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96(5):428–432. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90328-4.
Naeije M, Te Veldhuis AH, Te Veldhuis EC, et al. Disc displacement within the human temporomandibular joint: a systematic review of a ‘noisy annoyance’. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40(2):139–158. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12016.
Dalili Z, Khaki N, Kia SJ, et al. Assessing joint space and condylar position in the people with normal function of temporomandibular joint with cone-beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9(5):607–612. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.104881.
Tsiklakis K, Syriopoulos K, Stamatakis HC. Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33(3):196–201. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/27403192.
Hayashi T, Ito J, Koyama J, et al. Detectability of anterior displacement of the articular disk in the temporomandibular joint on helical computed tomography: the value of open mouth position. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88(1):106–111. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70202-7.
Ikeda K, Kawamura A. Assessment of optimal condylar position with limited cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(4):495–501. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.021.
Seren E, Akan H, Toller MO, et al. An evaluation of the condylar position of the temporomandibular joint by computerized tomography in Class III malocclusions: a preliminary study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;105(5):483–488. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70009-5.
Vitral RW, Telles CdeS. Computed tomography evaluation of temporomandibular joint alterations in class II Division 1 subdivision patients: condylar symmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121(4):369–375. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.121664.
Hilgers ML, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, et al. Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128(6):803–811. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.034.
Oliveira SR, Oliveira RDS, Rodrigues ED, et al. Accuracy of panoramic radiography for degenerative changes of the temporomandibular joint. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2020;10(1):96–100. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_411_19.
Katsavrias EG. Morphology of the temporomandibular joint in study participants with Class II Division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129(4):470–478. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.018.
Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR, Vitral RW. Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in Class II Division 1 and Class III malocclusion patients: condylar symmetry and condyle-fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(2):199–206. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.033.