Dimension and morphology of the mandibular condyle in class i patients in cone beam computed tomography.

Carmen Bustamante; Vanessa Labrín; Leslie Casas-Apayco; Hugo Ghersi

doi:10.17126/joralres.2020.003

Carmen Bustamante Escuela de Odontología, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Perú.
Vanessa Labrín Escuela de Odontología, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Perú.
Leslie Casas-Apayco Escuela de Odontología, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Perú.
Hugo Ghersi Escuela de Odontología, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Perú.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2020.003

Abstract

To evaluate the anterior-posterior (A-P)/medial-lateral (M-L) dimension, and morphology of the mandibular condyle in patients aged 18 to 65 years with Class I skeletal pattern on Cone Beam CT scans. Materials and Methods: Seventy one scans were evaluated using RealScan 2.0 software. The dimension was determined by points A (most anterior in the sagittal plane), P (most posterior in the sagittal plane), M (most interior in the coronal plane), L (most exterior in the coronal plane). The morphology of the condyle was evaluated in two coronal and sagittal planes, being classified as: round, flat, convex or mixed. The size of the condyle was analyzed by descriptive statistics and the morphology by frequency distribution. For the bivariate analysis, the Student's t-test was applied. Results: Measurements were obtained for the A-P diameter of the right condyle (RC) (8.72mm ± 1.25mm) and the left condylar (LC) (8.50mm ± 1.50mm), the M-L diameter of the RC (19.24mm ± 2.03mm) and the LC (18.97mm ± 1.87mm). There were significant differences in the male M-L dimension of the LC compared to the female (p=0.002). The most prevalent morphology of RC (35.21) and IQ (23.94) in the coronal plane was round. Conclusion: The A-P dimension of the right and left condyle is similar in both genders; however, there are differences in the M-L dimension of the left male condyle. The most prevalent morphology of the right and left condyle was round in the sagittal plane with the exception of the coronal plane.

References

1. Ocampo I, Aguilar M, Sánchez F. Cambios en la posición de las estructuras esqueléticas del complejo cráneo-cervical posterior a una cirugía ortognática. Rev Odont Mex. 2013; 17 (4): 210-20.
2. Kim N-W, Lee G-C, Moon C-H, Bae J-Y, Kim J-Y. A study of lower facial change according to facial type when virtually vertical dimension increases. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2016; 54 (1):1.
3. Montero P, Denis A. Los trastornos temporomandibulares y la oclusión dentaria a la luz de la posturología moderna. Rev Cubana Estomatol. 2013; 50(4): 408-21.
4. Moffett B. The temporomandibular joint. In: Complete Denture Prosrhodontics. 2nd Ed. New York: Sharrv Jj; 1968.
5. Hinton R. Relationships between mandibular joint size and craniofacial size and craniofacial size in human groups. Archs oral Biol. 1983; 28: 37-43.
6. Rey L, Valencia R, Gurrola B, Casasa A. Morfología tridimensional del cóndilo mandibular en pacientes asimétricos en el centro de estudios superiores de ortodoncia. 2008- 2009. Rev Latinoam ortodoncia y odontopediatri. 2010; 23: 4-5.
7. Hedge S, Praveen B, Shetty S. Morphological and Radiological Variations of Mandibular Condyles in Health and Diseases: A Systematic Review. Dentistry. 2013; 3 (1): 154.
8. López M, Amado J, Rodríguez M, Rendón J. Análisis crítico de la teoría funcional de Moss. Rev. CES Odontologia. 1993; 6(2): 173-8.
9. Yale S, Ceballos M, Kresnoff C, Hauptfuehrer J. Some observations on the classification of mandibular condyle types. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1963; 16: 572-7.
10. Christiansen E, Chan T, Thompson J, Hasso A, Hinshaw D. Computed tomography of the normal temporomandiular joint. Scand. J. Dent. Res. 1987; 95 (6): 499-509.
11. Raustia A, Pyhtinen J. Morphology of the condyles and mandibular fossa as seen by computed tomography. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1990; 63 (1): 77-82.
12. Cotecchia E, Lalue M, Alonso L, Smith R. Shape and Symmetry of Human Condyle and Mandibular Fossa. Int J Odontostomat. 2015; 91(1): 65-72.
13. Abdinan M, Aminian M, Seyyedkhamesi S. Comparison of accuracy between panoramic radiography, Cone Beam computed tomography, and ultrasography in detection of foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 44(1):18-24.
14. Aurell Y, Anderson M, Forslind K. Cone-beam computed tomography, a new low-dose three-dimensional imaging tech-nique for assessment of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis: reliability assessment and comparison with conventional radiography - a BARFOT study. Scan J Rheumatol. 2018; 10:1-5.
15. Valladares J, Estrela C, Bueno M, Aguirre O, Lyra O, Pécora J. Mandibular condyle dimensional changes in subjects from 3 to 20 years of age using Cone- Beam Computed Tomography: A preliminary study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010; 15 (5): 172-81.
16. Patel A, Tee B, Fields H, Jones E, Chaudhry J, Sun Z. Evaluation of cone –beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of simulated small osseous defects in the mandibular condyle. Am J Orthod Dentofacaial Orthop. 2014; 145 (2): 143-56.
17. Manjula W, Faizal T, Murali R, Kishore S, Mohammed N. Assessment of optimal condylar position with cone – beam computed tomography in south Indian female population. J Pham Biollied Sci. 2015; 7(1): 121-4.
18. Saccucci M, D’ Attilio M, Rdolfino D, Fesa F, Polimeni A, Tecco S. Condylar volumen and condylar área in class I, class II and class III Young adult subjects. Head & Face Medicine. 2012; 8 (1): 34.
19. Bertram F, Hupp L, Schanabl D, Rudisch A, Emshoff R. Association between missing posterior teeth and occurrence of temporomandibular joint condylar erosion: a Cone Beam Computed tomography study. Int J Prosthodontics. 2017; 31 (1): 9-14.
20. García-Sanz V, Bellot-Arcís C, Hernandez V, Serrano-Sánchez P, Guarinos J, Paredes V. Accuracy and Reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for linear and volumetric mandibular condyle measuements. A human cadaver study. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7 (1): 1-7.
21. Fialho A. Computed tomography evaluation of the tempo-romandibular joint in Class I malocclusion patients: Condylar symmetry and condyle-fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136 (2): 192-8 .
22. Park I. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomo-graphy based comparison of condylar position and morphology according to the vertical skeletal pattern. Korean J Orthod. 2015;45(2):66-73
23. Seo Y, Park S, Yong-ll K, Soo-Min O, Seong-Sik K, Woo-Sung S. Effects of condylar head surface changes on mandibular position in patients with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis. Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. 2015; 43(8); 1-4.
24. Zegarra-Baquerizo H, Moreno-Sékula K, Casas-Apayco L, Ghersi-Miranda H. Mandibular condyle dimensions in Peruvian patients with Class II and Class III skeletal patterns. J Oral Res 2017; 6(10):264-6.
25. Burgess M, Bowler M, Jones R, Hase M, Murdoch B. Im-proved Outcomes after Alloplastic TMJ Replacement: Analysis of a Multicenter Study from Australia and New Zeland. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 72: 1251.
26. Pereira-Santos D, De Melo WM, Souza FA, de Moura WL, Cravinhos JC. High condylectomy procedure: a valuable resource for surgical management of the mandibular condylar hyperplasia. J Craniofac Surg 2013; 24(4): 1451-3.
27. Ferreira S, da Silva Fabris AL, Ferreira GR, Faverani LP, Francisconi GB, Souza FA, Garcia IR Jr. Unilateral condylar hyperplasia: a treatment strategy. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25(3): e256-8.
28. Mercuri LG. Temporomandibular Joint Total Joint Repla-cement – TMJ TJR. A comprehensive reference for researchers, materials scientists, and surgeons. Springer. 2015.
29. Pimienta D, Buysse A, Hitoshi E. Evaluación clínica de pacientes con prótesis total de articulación temporomandibular. Rev Esp Cirug Oral y Maxilofac. 2013; 35 (3): 107-15.
30. Ramos A, Mesnard M. Comparison of load transfers in TMJ replacement using a standard and a custom-made temporal component. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42:1766-72.