Effect of fixed orthodontic treatment on mandibular condyle bone quality in different malocclusion groups

Year 2021, , 1160 - 1167, 30.09.2021

Betül Yüzbaşıoğlu Ertuğrul

https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.915323

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of orthodontic treatment on the mandibular condyle head bone formation according to different orthodontic malocclusion groups.
Materials and Methods: In the study, forty-eight patients were examined. Individuals included in the study were grouped according to malocclusion groups. Our study was carried out retrospectively. The quality of mandibular condyle bone in panoramic images of patients before and after orthodontic treatment were compared retrospectively. This examination was carried out by a fractal analysis method.
Results: According to the findings we obtained from our study; the change in mandibular condyle bone quality before and after orthodontic treatment by age and gender was not found to be statistically different. After orthodontic treatment in individuals with Class I and III malocclusions, the trabecular density structure of the mandibular condyle bone increased and decreased in individuals with Class II malocclusion. The change in mandibular condyle bone quality before and after orthodontic treatment by malocclusion groups was found to be statistically different.
Conclusion: The fractal analysis method is a technique that facilitates the diagnosis of minimal changes occurring on the radiographs of orthodontic treatment patients and to evaluate the prognosis of the disease. A relationship was found between orthodontic treatment applied to different malocclusion groups and mandibular condyle head bone formation. When evaluating orthodontic treatments, mandibular condyle head bone formation should be taken into consideration.

Keywords

Fractal analysis, orthodontic treatment, orthodontic malocclusion

Farklı maloklüzyon gruplarında ortodontik tedavinin mandibular kondil kemik kalitesine etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, ortodontik tedavinin mandibular kondil başı kemik oluşumu üzerine etkilerinin farklı ortodontik maloklüzyon gruplarına göre araştırılması amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada kırk sekiz hasta incelendi. Çalışmaya dahil edilen kişiler maloklüzyon gruplarına göre gruplandırıldı. Çalışmamız geriye dönük olarak yapıldı. Hastaların ortodontik tedavi öncesi ve sonrası panoramik görüntülerinde çene kondil kemiğinin kalitesi retrospektif olarak karşılaştırıldı. Bu inceleme fraktal analiz yöntemi ile yapılmıştır.
Bulgular: Çalışmamızdan elde ettiğimiz bulgulara göre; yaşa ve cinsiyete göre ortodontik tedavi öncesi ve sonrasında mandibular kondil kemik kalitesindeki değişim istatistiksel olarak farklı bulunmadı. Sınıf I ve III maloklüzyonlu bireylerde ortodontik tedavi sonrası mandibular kondil kemiğinin trabeküler yapısında densite azalması olmuştur. Sınıf II maloklüzyonlu bireylerde mandibular kondil kemiğinin trabeküler yapısı densite artması olmuştur. Maloklüzyon gruplarına göre ortodontik tedavi öncesi ve sonrası mandibular kondil kemik kalitesindeki değişim istatistiksel olarak farklı bulundu.
Sonuç: Fraktal analiz yöntemi, ortodontik tedavi gören hastaların radyografilerinde oluşan minimal değişikliklerin teşhisini kolaylaştıran ve hastalığın seyrini değerlendiren bir tekniktir. Farklı maloklüzyon gruplarına uygulanan ortodontik tedavi ile mandibular kondil başı kemik oluşumu arasında ilişki bulunabileceği belirlenmiştir. Ortodontik tedavileri değerlendirirken mandibular kondil başı kemik oluşumu göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

Keywords

Fraktal analiz, Ortodontik tedavi, ortodontik maloklüzyon

References

• 1. Poveda Roda R, Bagan JV, Diaz Fernandez JM, Hernandez Bazan S, Jimenez Soriano Y. Review of temporomandibular joint pathology. Part I: classification, epidemiology and risk factors. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2007;12:292-8.
• 2. Okeson JP. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. 5th ed. St. Louis (MO): Mosby; 2005 p 191-234.
• 3. Spalj S, Slaj M, Athanasiou AE, Zak I, Simunovic M, Slaj M. Temporomandibular disorders and orthodontic treatment need in orthodontically untreated children and adolescents. Coll Antropol 2015;39:151-8.
• 4. Moyaho-Bernal A, Lara-Munoz Mdel C, Espinosa-De Santillana I, Etchegoyen G. Prevalence of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders in children in the State of Puebla, Mexico, evaluated with the research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD). Acta Odontol Latinoam 2010;23:228-33.
• 5. Alomar X, Medrano J, Cabratosa J, Clavero JA, Lorente M, Serra I. Anatomy of the temporomandibular joint. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2007;28:170-183.
• 6. Yale SH. Radiographic evaluation of the temporomandibular joint. J Am Dent Assoc.1969;79:102-7.
• 7. Cakur B, Sahin A, Dagistan S, Altun O, Caglayan F, Miloglu O, Harorli A. Dental panoramic radiography in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Int Med Res 2008:36:792-9.
• 8. Bollen AM, Taguchi A, Hujoel PP, Hollender LG. Fractal dimension on dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;30:270-5.
• 9. Pothuaud L, Lespessailles E, Harba R, Jennane R, Royant V, Eynard E, Benhamou CL. Fractal analysis of trabecular bone texture on radiographs: discriminant value in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2008;8:618-25.
• 10. Saeed SS, Ibraheem UM, Alnema MM. Quantitative Analysis by Pixel Intensity and Fractal Dimensions for Imaging Diagnosis of Periapical Lesions. International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering 2014;3:138-44
• 11. White SC, Rudolph DJ. Alterations of the trabecular pattern of the jaws in patients with osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:628-35.
• 12. Seligman DA, Pullinger AG. The role of functional occlusal relationships in temporomandibular disorders: a review. J Craniomandib Disord 1991 5:265-279.
• 13. Egermark-Eriksson I, Carlsson GE, Magnusson T, Thilander B. A longitudinal study on malocclusion in relation to signs and symptoms of cranio-mandibular disorders in children and adolescents. Eur J Orthod 2010 12:399-407.
• 14. McNeill C Temporomandibular disorders: guidelines for classifcation, assessment, and management. Chicago, IL: Quintessence 1993;1-7.
• 15. Pullinger AG, Seligman DA, Gornbein, JA. A multiple logistic regression analysis of the risk and relative odds of temporomandibular disorders as a function of common occlusal features. J Dent Res 1993;72:968-79.
• 16. McNamara JA, Jr Seligman DA, Okeson JP. Occlusion, Orthodontic treatment, and temporomandibular disorders: a review. J Orofac Pain 1995;9:73-90.
• 17. Jussila P, Krooks L, Napankangas R, Pakkila J, Lahdesmaki R, Pirttiniemi P, Raustia A. The role of occlusion in temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort (NFBC) 1966. Cranio, 2018;1-7.
• 18. Thilander B, Rubio G, Pena L, Mayorga C. Prevalence of temporomandibular dysfunction and its association with malocclusion in children and adolescents: an epidemiologic study related to specified stages of dental development. Angle Orthod 2002;72:146–54.
• 19. Celić R, Jerolimov V, Pandurić J. A study of the influence of occlusal factors and parafunctional habits on the prevalence of signs and symptoms of TMD. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:43-8.
• 20. Southard TE, Southard KA, Jakobsen JR, Hillis SL, Najim CA. Fractal dimension in radiographic analysis of alveolar process bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82:569-76.
• 21. White SC, Rudolph DJ. Alterations of the trabecular pattern of the jaws in patients with osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:628-35.
• 22. AS Ertuğrul, A Bozoğlan, Y Tekin, H Sahin, A Dikilitaş, NZ Alpaslan. Determining the relationship between angle of roots, crown furcation roof angle, and furcation defects using cone beam computerized tomography. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2013;21:9115.
• 23. Law AN, Bollen AM, Chen SK. Detecting osteoporosis using dental radiographs: a comparison of four methods. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:1734-42.
• 24. Sadowsky C, BeGole EA. Long-term status of temporomandibular joint function and functional occlusion after orthodontic treatment Am J Orthod 2000;78:201-12.
• 25. Sadowsky C, Polson AM. Temporomandibular disorders and functional occlusion after orthodontic treatment: results of two long-term studies Am J Orthod 2004;86:386-90.
• 26. Kremenak CR, Kinser DD, Melcher TJ, Wright GR, Harrison SD, Ziaja RR, Harman HA, Ordahl JN, Demro JG, Menard CC. Orthodontics as a risk factor for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:21-7.
• 27. Dibbets JM, van der Weele LT. Extraction, orthodontic treatment, and craniomandibular dysfunction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;99:210-9