The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of the Condyle Sagittal Position of Class I and Class II Division 2 in Orthodontic Patients

Murilo Fernando Neuppmann Feres, Osama Eissa, Marina Guimarães Roscoe

Citation Information : Feres MF, Eissa O, Roscoe MG. Comparison of the Condyle Sagittal Position of Class I and Class II Division 2 in Orthodontic Patients. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (9):977-981.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2867

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-01-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To compare the condyle sagittal position of class I and class II division 2 in orthodontic patients. Materials and methods: Fifty orthodontic cases (30 females and 20 males; 12–31 years) from the records of an Orthodontic Graduate Program were collected. Such cases presented cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) as part of their initial diagnostic examinations. The study sample constituted two groups, i.e. class I and class II division 2 groups. A previously calibrated examiner performed the measurements of the images, representing the distance between the condyle and the articular surface of the glenoid fossa, both anteriorly (anterior disk space—ADS) and posteriorly (posterior disk space—PDS). Descriptive statistics were performed. Data were normally distributed, and parametric tests were used. Paired sample test was used to identify differences between the right and the left joints. Differences between class I and class II/2 groups were tested using independent t test. All statistical tests were interpreted at 5% significance level. Results: When the study groups were compared in relation to the dimensions observed for the right and the left ADS and PDS, no significant differences were detected. This study also calculated the differences between right and left disk spaces within the groups, and the differences were not significant for both class I and class II/2 groups. Conclusion: The results demonstrated, after the performance of a CBCT comparative analysis, that there is no significant difference between class II/2 and class I orthodontic patients in relation to the condyle sagittal position. Clinical significance: The results collected here refute the expectation of spontaneous mandibular anterior repositioning after correcting the overbite in class II/2 patients.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dent Cosmos 1899;41(3):248–264.
  2. Isik F, Nalbantgil D, Sayinsu K, et al. A comparative study of cephalometric and arch width characteristics of class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 2006;28(2):179–183. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji096.
  3. Al-Khateeb EA, Al-Khateeb SN. Anteroposterior and vertical components of class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2009;79(5):859–866. DOI: 10.2319/062208-325.1.
  4. Prasad SE, Indukuri RR, Singh R, et al. Pathognomonic features of angle's class II division 2 malocclusion: a comparative cephalometric and arch width study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2014;4(Suppl 2):S105–S109. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.146212.
  5. Uzuner FD, Aslan BI, Dinçer M. Dentoskeletal morphology in adults with class I, class II division 1, or class II division 2 malocclusion with increased overbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019;156(2): 248–256.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.03.006.
  6. Barbosa LAG, Araujo E, Behrents RG, et al. Longitudinal cephalometric growth of untreated subjects with class II division 2 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151(5):914–920. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.10.026.
  7. Stack BC, Funt LA. Temporomandibular joint dysfunction in children. J Pedod 1977;1(3):240–247.
  8. Thompson JR. Abnormal function of the temporomandibular joints and related musculature. Orthodontic implications. part II. Angle Orthod 1986;56(3):181–195. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1986)0562.0.CO;2.
  9. 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.
  10. Gianelly AA. Rapid palatal expansion in the absence of crossbites: added value? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(4):362–365. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00568-7.
  11. Lima Filho RM, Lima AC, de Oliveira Ruellas AC. Spontaneous correction of class II malocclusion after rapid palatal expansion. Angle Orthod 2003;73(6):745–752. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)0732.0.CO;2.
  12. Mohlin BO, Derweduwen K, Pilley R, et al. Malocclusion and temporomandibular disorder: a comparison of adolescents with moderate to severe dysfunction with those without signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorder and their further development to 30 years of age. Angle Orthod 2004;74(3):319–327. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)0742.0.CO;2.
  13. Costa MD, Froes Junior GRT, Santos CN. Evaluation of occlusal factors in patients with temporomandibular joint disorder. Dental Press J Orthod 2012;17(6):61–68. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512012000600015.
  14. Almăşan OC, Băciuţ M, Almăşan HA, et al. Skeletal pattern in subjects with temporomandibular joint disorders. Arch Med Sci 2013;9(1):118–126. DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2013.33072.
  15. Bilgiç F, Gelgör İE. Prevalence of temporomandibular dysfunction and its association with malocclusion in children: an Epidemiologic study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;41(2):161–165. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.2.161.
  16. Mollabashi V, Heidari A, Ebrahimizadeh H, et al. The study of facial morphology in patient with vertical growth pattern (hyperdivergent) lacking or showing TMD symptoms. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;S2468-7855(19):30224-1.
  17. Pullinger AG, Solberg WK, Hollender L, et al. Relationship of mandibular condylar position to dental occlusion factors in an asymptomatic population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91(3):200–206. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90447-1.
  18. 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)0662.3.CO;2.
  19. Fernández Sanromán J, Gómez González JM, del Hoyo JA. Relationship between condylar position, dentofacial deformity and temporomandibular joint dysfunction: an MRI and CT prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1998;26(1):35–42. DOI: 10.1016/s1010-5182(98)80033-4.
  20. Katsavrias EG, Halazonetis DJ. Condyle and fossa shape in class II and class III skeletal patterns: a morphometric tomographic study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128(3):337–346. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.05.024.
  21. Paknahad M, Shahidi S, Abbaszade H. Correlation between condylar position and different sagittal skeletal facial types. J Orofac Orthop 2016;77(5):350–356. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-016-0039-z.
  22. Akbulut A, Kılınç DD. Evaluation of condyle position in patients with angle class I, II, and III malocclusion using cone-beam computed tomography panoramic reconstructions. Oral Radiol 2019;35(1): 43–50. DOI: 10.1007/s11282-018-0326-z.
  23. Lobo F, Tolentino ES, Iwaki LCV, et al. Imaginology tridimensional study of temporomandibular joint osseous components according to sagittal skeletal relationship, sex, and age. J Craniofac Surg 2019;30(5):1462–1465. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005467.
  24. Song J, Cheng M, Qian Y, et al. Cone-beam CT evaluation of temporomandibular joint in permanent dentition according to angle's classification. Oral Radiol 2020;36(3):261–266. DOI: 10.1007/s11282-019-00403-3.
  25. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39(10):729–755. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7.
  26. 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.
  27. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155–163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
  28. Arieta-Miranda JM, Silva-Valencia M, Flores-Mir C, et al. Spatial analysis of condyle position according to sagittal skeletal relationship, assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod 2013;14(1):36. DOI: 10.1186/2196-1042-14-36.
  29. 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.
  30. Kaur A, Natt AS, Mehra SK, et al. Improved visualization and assessment of condylar position in the glenoid fossa for different occlusions: a CBCT study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(8):679–686. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1912.
  31. Park IY, Kim JH, Park YH. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography based comparison of condylar position and morphology according to the vertical skeletal pattern. Korean J Orthod 2015;45(2):66–73. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.66.
  32. de Mattos JM, Palomo JM, de Oliveira Ruellas AC, et al. Three-dimensional positional assessment of glenoid fossae and mandibular condyles in patients with class II subdivision malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2017;87(6):847–854. DOI: 10.2319/121216-890.1.
  33. Huang M, Hu Y, Yu J, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of the temporomandibular joint and dental characteristics of patients with class II subdivision malocclusion and asymmetry. Korean J Orthod 2017;47(5):277–288. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.5.277.
  34. Monje F, Delgado E, Navarro MJ, et al. Changes in the temporomandibular joint caused by the vertical facial pattern. Study Experim Model J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1994;22(6):361–370. DOI: 10.1016/s1010-5182(05)80118-0.
  35. Velásquez RL, Coro JC, Londoño A, et al. Three-dimensional morphological characterization of malocclusions with mandibular lateral displacement using cone-beam computed tomography. Cranio 2018;36(3):143–155. DOI: 10.1080/08869634.2017. 1300994.
  36. 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.
  37. Coskuner HG, Ciger S. Three-dimensional assessment of the temporomandibular joint and mandibular dimensions after early correction of the maxillary arch form in patients with class II division 1 or division 2 malocclusion. Korean J Orthod 2015;45(3):121–129. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.3.121.
  38. Volk T, Sadowsky C, Begole EA, et al. Rapid palatal expansion for spontaneous class II correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(3):310–315. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.05.017.
  39. Feres MF, Raza H, Alhadlaq A, et al. Rapid maxillary expansion effects in class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2015;85(6):1070–1079. DOI: 10.2319/102514-768.1.
  40. Caruso S, Storti E, Nota A, et al. Temporomandibular joint anatomy assessed by CBCT images. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:2916953. DOI: 10.1155/2017/2916953.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.