Evaluation of condyle position in patients with Angle Class I, II, and III malocclusion using cone-beam computed tomography panoramic reconstructions
- 73 Downloads
This study was performed to compare the positions of the right and left condyles between male and female patients with different Angle malocclusions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) panoramic reconstructions.
The CBCT images of 60 patients (age of 18–37 years) were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were divided according to their Angle malocclusion classifications (Angle Classes I, II, and III). The condyle-to-eminence, condyle-to-fossa, and condyle-to-meatus distances were measured digitally using i-CAT software.
The left and right condyle-to-fossa distances were the most variable parameters among the Angle classes. The right condyle-to-eminence and right condyle-to-fossa distances were significantly different among the classes. Male patients seemed to have a greater condyle-to-fossa distance on the right side in both the Class I and III groups. The mean distance from the condyle to eminence, condyle to fossa, and condyle to meatus on the right side was the greatest in the Angle Class II group.
In all three types of malocclusion (Angle Classes I, II, and III), the condyles on both the right and left sides were not exactly symmetric or centrally located within the glenoid fossa. This work emphasizes the differences in the condyle position between male and female patients. Furthermore, the symmetry and centricity of the condyles are not dependent on the patient’s sex or type of malocclusion.
KeywordsCondyle position Temporomandibular joint Panoramic CBCT Ricketts
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Aslıhan Akbulut and Delal Dara Kılınç declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human rights statements
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.
Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
- 1.Merigue LF, Conti AC, Oltramari-Navarro PVP, Navarro RDL, Almedia MRD. Tomographic evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in malocclusion subjects: condylar morphology and position. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30(1).Google Scholar
- 3.Ganugapanta VR, Ponnada SR, Gaddam KPR, Perumalla K, Khan I, Mohammed NA. Computed tomographic evaluation of condylar symmetry and condyle–fossa relationship of the temporomandibular joint in subjects with normal occlusion and malocclusion: a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(2):ZC29–Z33.Google Scholar
- 11.Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006;72(1):75–80.Google Scholar
- 19.Matsumoto MA, Bolognese AM. Bone morphology of the temporomandibular joint and its relation to dental occlusion. Braz Dent J. 1995;6(2):115–22.Google Scholar
- 20.Cohlmia JT, Ghosh J, Sinha PK, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Tomographic assessment of temporomandibular joints in patients with malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1996;66(1):27–36.Google Scholar
- 22.Vitral RWF, de Souza Telles C, Fraga MR, de Oliveira RSMF., Tanaka OM. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Ricketts RM. Various conditions of the temporomandibular joint as revealed by cephalometric laminagraphy. Angle Orthod. 1952;22(2):98–115.Google Scholar
- 25.Williamson EH, Evans DL, Barton WA, Williams BH. The effect of bite plane use on terminal hinge axis location. Angle Orthod. 1977;47(1):25–33.Google Scholar
- 29.Barghan S, Merrill R, Tetradis S. Cone beam computed tomography imaging in the evaluation of the temporomandibular joint. Tex Dent J. 2012;129(3):289–302.Google Scholar
- 32.Caruso S, Storti E, Nota A, Ehsani S, Gatto R. Temporomandibular joint anatomy assessed by CBCT images. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2916953.Google Scholar