COMPARISON OF TMJ MORPHOLOGY IN ORTHODONTIC MALOCCLUSIONS USING CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Year 2022, Volume: 32 Issue: 1, 63 - 66, 15.02.2022

Mert Ocak , Mehmet Eray Kolsuz

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this investigation was to study morphometry of the head of the mandible in patients with Class I, Class II and Class III malocclusions.
Methods: Cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) images of 39 patients were evaluated (each group consisted of 13 patients). The morphology of mandibular condylar which tissue volume, trabecular bone volume, bone density and the bone surface were measured and calculated according to Angle classifications.
Results: A statistically significant difference was found between the tissue volume (P = .05) and bone surface (P = .028) variables between Class II and III. The volume of tissue between the Class III group and the other groups (Class I P = ,016, Class II P = ,006), trabecular bone volume (Class I P = ,002, Class II P = .001) and bone surface (Class I P = ,016, Class II P = ,005) were statistically different for women.
Conclusion: The morphology of mandibular condylar changes in terms of tissue volume, trabecular bone volume, bone density and the bone surface can be related to malocclusions. Moreover, further studies must be done for future studies on temporomandibular joint development and the measurements of condylar volume and relation with the skeletal patterns.
Key Words: TMJ, morphology, CBCT, bone parameters, malocclusions

ÖZ
Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı Sınıf I, Sınıf II ve Sınıf III maloklüzyonlu hastalarda condylus mandibula morfometrisinin incelenmesidir.
Yöntemler: 39 hastanın konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (CBCT) görüntüleri değerlendirilmiştir (her grup 13 hastadan oluşmaktadır). Angle sınıflandırmalarına göre 3 eşit grup oluşturulmuş ve doku hacmi, trabeküler kemik hacmi, kemik yoğunluğu ve kemik yüzeyleri ölçülmüştür.
Bulgular: Sınıf II ve III arasında doku hacmi (P = ,05) ve kemik yüzeyi (P = ,028) değişkenleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmuştur. Sınıf III grubu ile diğer gruplar arasındaki doku hacmi (Sınıf I P = ,016, Sınıf II (P = ,006), trabeküler kemik hacmi (Sınıf I P = ,002, Sınıf II P = ,001) ve kemik yüzeyleri (Sınıf I P = ,016, Sınıf II (P = ,005) kadınlar için istatistiksel olarak farklıydı.
Sonuç: Mandibular kondiler değişikliklerin doku hacmi, trabeküler kemik hacmi, kemik yoğunluğu ve kemik yüzeyi açısından morfolojisi maloklüzyonlarla ilişkili olabilir. Ayrıca, temporomandibular eklem gelişimi ve kondil hacminin ölçümleri ve iskelet paternleri ile ilişkisi üzerine ileride yapılacak çalışmalar için daha ileri çalışmalar yapılmalıdır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: TME, morfoloji, cbct, maloklüzyon, kemik parametreler

Keywords

TMJ, morphology, CBCT, bone parameters, malocclusions

References

• 1. Standring S. Gray’s Anatomy E-Book: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2015.
• 2. Alomar X, Medrano J, Cabratosa J, et al. Anatomy of the temporomandibular joint. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2007;28(3):170-183.
• 3. Ingawalé S, Goswami T. Temporomandibular joint: disorders, treatments, and biomechanics. Ann Biomed Eng. 2009;37(5):976-996.
• 4. Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AM. Clinically oriented anatomy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2013
• 5. Ueki K, Marukawa K, Nakagawa K, Yamamoto E. Condylar and temporomandibular joint disc positions after mandibular osteotomy for prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60(12):1424-1432; discussion 1432-144.
• 6. Egermark I, Magnusson T, Carlsson GE. A 20-year follow-up of signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders and malocclusions in subjects with and without orthodontic treatment in childhood. Angle Orthod. 2003;73(2):109-115.
• 7. 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.
• 8. Kuvvetli SS. Temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents: Literature review. Curr Res Dent Sci. 2007;2:1-9
• 9. Mohlin BO, Derweduwen K, Pilley R, Kingdon A, Shaw W, Kenealy P. 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.
• 10. Pahkala R, Laine-Alava M. Do early signs of orofacial dysfunctions and occlusal variables predict development of TMD in adolescence? J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29(8):737-743.
• 11. Sari S, Sonmez H, Oray G, Camdeviren H. Temporomandibular joint dysfunction and occlusion in the mixed and permanent dentition. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999;24(1):59-62.
• 12. Aksoy S, Orhan K. Temporomandibular joint Imaging. J Ondokuz Mayıs Uni Fac Dent. 2010;11-18.
• 13. Lewis EL, Dolwick MF, Abramowicz S, Reeder SL. Contemporary imaging of the temporomandibular joint. Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52(4):875-890.
• 14. Orhan K. The importance of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in Dentistry. Yeditepe Üni Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2012.
• 15. Scarfe W, A F. Cone-beam computed tomography. In: Oral Radiology Principles and Interpretation. 6 edn. St Louis, Elsevier. 2009.
• 16. Krisjane Z, Urtane I, Krumina G, Bieza A, Zepa K, Rogovska I. Condylar and mandibular morphological criteria in the 2D and 3D MSCT imaging for patients with Class II division 1 subdivision malocclusion. Stomatologija. 2007;9(3):67-71.
• 17. Krisjane Z, Urtane I, Krumina G, Zepa K. Three-dimensional evaluation of TMJ parameters in Class II and Class III patients. Stomatologija. 2009;11(1):32-36.
• 18. Saccucci M, D’Attilio M, Rodolfino D, Festa F, Polimeni A, Tecco S. Condylar volume and condylar area in class I, class II and class III young adult subjects. Head Face Med. 2012;8:34.
• 19. Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(3):387-395.
• 20. Ho JT, Wu J, Huang HL, Chen MY, Fuh LJ, Hsu JT. Trabecular bone structural parameters evaluated using dental cone-beam computed tomography: cellular synthetic bones. Biomed Eng Online. 2013;12:115.
• 21. Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante C, Versiani M, et al. Comparative accuracy of the Clearing Technique, CBCT and Micro-CT methods in studying the mesial root canal configuration of mandibular first molars. Int Endod J. 2017;50(1):90-96.
• 22. Van Dessel J, Huang Y, Depypere M, Rubira-Bullen I, Maes F, Jacobs R. A comparative evaluation of cone beam CT and micro-CT on trabecular bone structures in the human mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(8):20130145.
• 23. Katsavrias EG. Morphology of the temporomandibular joint in subjects with Class II Division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(4):470-478.
• 24. Yılancı HÖ, Akkaya N, Özbek M. Kondiler hiperplazinin terminolojisi ve sınıflandırılması: İki olgu sunumu ve derleme. Tr-ENT. 2015;25(6):367-374.
• 25. Raijmakers PG, Karssemakers LH, Tuinzing DB. Female predominance and effect of gender on unilateral condylar hyperplasia: a review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(1):e72-76.