The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Dimensional and Positional Associations between the Mandibular Condyle and Glenoid Fossa: A Three-dimensional Cone-beam Computed Tomography-based Study

Abeer A Almashraqi

Citation Information : Almashraqi AA. Dimensional and Positional Associations between the Mandibular Condyle and Glenoid Fossa: A Three-dimensional Cone-beam Computed Tomography-based Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (10):1075-1083.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2942

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-03-2021

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


Aim: This retrospective cross-sectional study investigated the dimensional and positional associations between the mandibular condyle and glenoid fossa (GF) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: Seventy female subjects [140 temporomandibular joints (TMJs)] were divided into two groups. Group I included 35 subjects with normal facial profiles (NFPs) in which the soft tissue glabella, subnasal point, and the soft tissue chin are almost in the same straight line, while the 35 subjects in group II had abnormal facial profiles (AFPs) in which the same imaginary line is either convex or concave indicating variation from standard norms. Three-dimensional volume analyses were performed on CBCT images by digitizing all landmarks in three orthogonal planes to measure the dimensional and positional parameters of the condyle and GF. Then the Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to identify associations between different condyle and GF parameters. Results: Sagittal condylar surface area was significantly associated with all dimensional parameters of the GF (GF height, width, and surface area, condylar width, and the GF width and between the axial and coronal condylar surface area with GF height and GF width) on the right and left sides of both groups (p values ranging from 0.000 to 0.028). Positional associations were detected between the anteroposterior and mediolateral GF positions and the corresponding position of the mandibular condyles and between the anteroposterior condylar position and the vertical GF position on both sides of both groups (p values ranged from 0.000 to 0.015). Conclusion: There is a strong association between the mandibular condyle and GF in both positional and dimensional measurements in patients with normal and abnormal facial profiles. Clinical significance: Understanding the associations between the mandibular condyle and GF facilitates optimization of the treatment outcomes by increasing occlusal harmony and stability after orthodontic treatment, orthognathic surgery, or any prosthetic replacement.

  1. Moon H-J, Lee Y-K. The relationship between dental occlusion/temporomandibular joint status and general body health: part 1. Dental occlusion and TMJ status exert an influence on general body health. J Alternat Complement Med 2011;17(11):995–1000. DOI: 10.1089/acm.2010.0739.
  2. Okeson JP. Evolution of occlusion and temporomandibular disorder in orthodontics: past, present, and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147(5):S216–S223. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015. 02.007.
  3. Warreth A, Fundamentals of occlusion and restorative dentistry. Part II: occlusal contacts, interferences and occlusal considerations in implant patients. 2015.
  4. 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 Contempor Dent Pract 2016;17(8):679. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1912.
  5. Bordoni B, Varacallo M. Anatomy, head and neck, temporomandibular joint. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2019.
  6. Derwich M, Mitus-Kenig M, Pawlowska E. Temporomandibular joints’ morphology and osteoarthritic changes in cone-beam computed tomography images in patients with and without reciprocal clicking—A case control study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(10):3428. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103428.
  7. Larheim T, Abrahamsson A, Kristensen M, et al. Temporomandibular joint diagnostics using CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(1):20140235. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140235.
  8. Talmaceanu D, Lenghel LM, Bolog N, et al. Imaging modalities for temporomandibular joint disorders: an update. Clujul Med 2018;91(3):280.
  9. Ferreira LA, Grossmann E, Januzzi E, et al. Diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disorders: indication of imaging exams. Brazilian J Otorhinolaryngol 2016;82(3):341–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.06.010.
  10. Schnabl D, Rottler A-K, Schupp W, et al. CBCT and MRT imaging in patients clinically diagnosed with temporomandibular joint arthralgia. Heliyon 2018;4(6):e00641. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00641.
  11. Almashraqi AA, Ahmed EA, Mohamed NS, et al. Evaluation of different low-dose multidetector CT and cone beam CT protocols in maxillary sinus imaging: part I—an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017;46(6):20160323. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20160323.
  12. Mathew AL, Sholapurkar AA, Pai KM. Condylar changes and its association with age, TMD, and dentition status: a cross-sectional study. Int J Dent 2011;2011:413639.
  13. Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J. Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians. PLoS ONE 2015;10(3):e0121682. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121682.
  14. Obamiyi S, Malik S, Wang Z, et al. Radiographic features associated with temporomandibular joint disorders among African, white, Chinese, hispanic, and Indian racial groups. Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21(11):1495–1500.
  15. Ribeiro EC, Sanches ML, Alonso LG, et al. Shape and symmetry of human condyle and mandibular fossa. Int J Odontostomat 2015;9(1):65–72. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-381X2015000100010.
  16. Serindere G, Belgin CA, Serindere M. Volumetric and morphological analysis of condyle and glenoid fossa on computed tomography. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020(9). DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06078-5.
  17. Ejima K, Schulze D, Stippig A, et al. Relationship between the thickness of the roof of glenoid fossa, condyle morphology and remaining teeth in asymptomatic European patients based on cone beam CT data sets. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42(3):90929410. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/90929410.
  18. İlgüy D, İlgüy M, Fişekçioğlu E, et al. Articular eminence inclination, height, and condyle morphology on cone beam computed tomography. Sci World J 2014;2014:761714. DOI: 10.1155/2014/761714.
  19. Alhammadi MS, Fayed MMS, Labib A. Comprehensive three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography analysis of the temporomandibular joint in different vertical skeletal facial patterns. J World Federat Orthodont 2016;5(1):9–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2016.02.001.
  20. Alhammadi MS, Fayed MS, Labib A. Three-dimensional assessment of temporomandibular joints in skeletal class I, class II, and class III malocclusions: cone beam computed tomography analysis. J World Federat Orthodont 2016;5(3):80–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2016.07.001.
  21. Campos M, Cruz A. Morphometric study of the mandibular condyle of the rat during postnatal development. Cells Tissues Organs 1985;123(3):189–194. DOI: 10.1159/000146061.
  22. Wang Y, Liu C, Rohr J, et al. Tissue interaction is required for glenoid fossa development during temporomandibular joint formation. Dev Dyn 2011;240(11):2466–2473. DOI: 10.1002/dvdy.22748.
  23. Kikuchi K, Takeuchi S, Tanaka E, et al. Association between condylar position, joint morphology and craniofacial morphology in orthodontic patients without temporomandibular joint disorders. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(11):1070–1075. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01194.x.
  24. Alhammadi M, Fayed M, Labib A. Three-dimensional assessment of condylar position and joint spaces after maxillary first premolar extraction in skeletal class II malocclusion. Orthod Craniofac Res 2017;20(2):71–78. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12141.
  25. 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.
  26. Avci S, Ergun T, Aydin E, et al. Sex differences in adult craniofacial parameters. Surg Radiol Anat 2015;37(9):1069–1078. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-015-1477-9.
  27. Buschang PH, Jacob HB, Mandibular rotation revisited: what makes it so important? Paper presented at: Seminars in Orthodontics 2014.
  28. Tsuruta A, Yamada K, Hanada K, et al. Thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa and condylar bone change: a CT study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32(4):217–221. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/15476586.
  29. Maeda Y. Biomechanical simulation of the morphological change in the temporomandibular joint part 1: factors influencing stress distribution. J Jpn Soc TMJ 1991;3:1–9.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.