Evaluation of TMJ morphology in patients with different skeletal pattern: A retrospective pilot study

Abstract

Aim: In this study, it was aimed to evaluate joint morphology in patients with different skeletal patterns using cone beam computed tomography. Methods: In this study, condyle shape (round, flat, convex, angled), condyle width and height, glenoid fossa roof thickness measurements were made on cone-beam computed tomography images where temporomandibular joint can be visualized and skeletal measurements can be made. The incidence of condyle shapes according to 3 different skeletal patterns and genders and the differences between the measurements obtained were evaluated statistically. Results: The incidence of convex, angled, flat and round type condyles in the patient group was 39.8%, 9.9%, 38.1%, 12.2%, respectively. The convex type was most common in both the entire study group and in Class 1 and 3 patients, while the incidence of flat type condyles in Class 2 patients was significantly higher than in Class 3 patients. Among the measurement values, only condyle height was found to be significantly higher in Class 3 patients than in Class 2 patients. Conclusion: In this study, it was determined that temporomandibular joint morphology and skeletal patterns were associated. Knowing the joint anatomy, which can be encountered frequently in orthodontic treatment and follow-ups, will be beneficial in detecting changes due to orthodontic treatment, and will pave the way for planning priority treatments for temporomandibular joint.

Keywords

• Skeletal Pattern
• CBCT
• TMJ

Farklı iskeletsel patern’e sahip hastalarda TME morfolojisinin değerlendirilmesi: Bir retrospektif pilot çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi kullanılarak farklı iskeletsel paterne sahip hastalarda eklem morfolojisinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Çalışma kapsamında temporomandibular eklem’in görüntülenebildiği ve iskeletsel ölçümlerin yapılabildiği konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntüleri üzerinde kondil şekli (yuvarlak, düz, konveks, açılı), kondil genişlik ve uzunlukları, glenoid fossa taban kalınlığı ölçümleri yapıldı. 3 farklı iskeletsel paterne ve cinsiyetlere göre kondil şekillerinin görülme sıklıkları ve elde edilen ölçümler arası farklılıklar istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Hasta grubunda konveks, açılı, flat ve yuvarlak tip kondillerin görülme sıklığı sırasıyla %39.8, %9.9, %38.1, %12.2’ydi. Hem tüm çalışma grubunda hem de Sınıf 1 ve 3 hastalarda en sık konveks tip görülürken, Sınıf 2 hastalarda flat tip kondilin görülme sıklığı anlamlı derecede Sınıf 3 hastalardan fazlaydı. Ölçüm değerleri arasında sadece kondil yüksekliği Sınıf 3 hastalarda Sınıf 2 hastalara göre anlamlı derecede yüksek bulundu. Sonuç: Bu çalışmada temporomandibular eklem morfolojisi ile iskeletsel paternlerin ilişkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ortodontik tedavi ve takiplerinde sık karşılaşılabilecek eklem anatomisinin bilinmesi yapılan ortodontik tedaviye bağlı meydana gelen değişikliklerin tespit edilmesinde fayda sağlayacak, eklem öncelikli tedavilerin planlanmasının önünü açacaktır.

Keywords

• İskeletsel Patern
• KIBT
• TME

Thanks

Yazarlar çalışma verilerinin konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi ile değerlendirilmesinde görüşlerine başvurulan Elif Bilgir’e teşekkür eder.

References

1. Hasebe A, Yamaguchi T, Nakawaki T, Hikita Y, Katayama K, Maki K. Comparison of condylar size among different anteroposterior and vertical skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2019 Mar;89(2):306-311. doi: 10.2319/032518-229.1.
2. Koide D, Yamada K, Yamaguchi A, Kageyama T, Taguchi A. Morphological changes in the temporomandibular joint after orthodontic treatment for Angle Class II malocclusion. Cranio. 2018 Jan;36(1):35-43. doi: 10.1080/08869634.2017.1285218.
3. Tecco S, Baldini A, Nakaš E, Primozic J. Interceptive Orthodontics and Temporomandibular Joint Adaptations: Such Evidences? Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:8953572. doi: 10.1155/2017/8953572.
4. Yale SH, Ceballos M, Kresnoff CS, Hauptfuehrer J. Some observations on the classification of mandibular condyle types. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1963 May;16:572-7. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(63)90146-4.
5. Yale SH, Allison BD, Hauptfuehrer J. Yale SH, Allison BD, Hauptfuehrer JD. An epidemiological assessment of mandibular condyle morphology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1966 Feb;21(2):169-77.
6. Yalcin ED, Ararat E. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study of Mandibular Condylar Morphology. J Craniofac Surg. 2019 Nov-Dec;30(8):2621-2624. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005699.
7. Petersson A. What you can and cannot see in TMJ imaging--an overview related to the RDC/TMD diagnostic system. J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Oct;37(10):771-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02108.x.
8. Krishnamoorthy B, Mamatha N, Kumar VA. TMJ imaging by CBCT: Current scenario. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jan;3(1):80-3. doi: 10.4103/2231-0746.110069.

9. Lewis EL, Dolwick MF, Abramowicz S, Reeder SL. Contemporary imaging of the temporomandibular joint. Dent Clin North Am. 2008 Oct;52(4):875-90, viii. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.06.001.
10. Baba IA, Najmuddin M, Shah AF, Yousuf A. TMJ imaging: a review. International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research. 2016;3(8):2253-6. https://www.ijcmr.com/uploads/7/7/4/6/77464738/ijcmr_795_aug_4.pdf. 7 Mart 2022'de erişildi.
11. Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J. Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 24;10(3):e0121682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121682.
12. Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA. New three-dimensional cephalometric analyses among adults with a skeletal Class I pattern and normal occlusion. Korean J Orthod. 2013 Apr;43(2):62-73. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2013.43.2.62.
13. Eun-Young J, Ro J-A, Sang-Min L, Jong-Tae P. Condylar Size in Malocclusion Skeletal Patterns: Measurements of Three Dimensional Models. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2020;49(3):595-7. https://ijph.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijph/article/view/19926. 7 Mart 2022'de erişildi.
14. Ezhil I, Arun A, Kumar M. Morphological changes of the mandibular condyle following orthodontic treatment. J Drug Invention Today. 2018;10. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=07a8714f-3139-4ac5-92bb-a31142c8151b%40redis. 7 Mart 2022' de erişildi.
15. Park IY, Kim JH, Park YH. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography based comparison of condylar position and morphology according to the vertical skeletal pattern. Korean J Orthod. 2015 Mar;45(2):66-73. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.66.
16. Hilgers ML, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Dec;128(6):803-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.034.
17. Noh KJ, Baik HS, Han SS, Jang W, Choi YJ. Differences in mandibular condyle and glenoid fossa morphology in relation to vertical and sagittal skeletal patterns: A cone-beam computed tomography study. Korean J Orthod. 2021 Mar 25;51(2):126-134. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.126.
18. Arayapisit T, Ngamsom S, Duangthip P, Wongdit S, Wattanachaisiri S, Joonthongvirat Y, et al. Understanding the mandibular condyle morphology on panoramic images: A conebeam computed tomography comparison study. Cranio. 2020 Dec 9:1-8. doi: 10.1080/08869634.2020.1857627.
19. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Sigurtà D. Asymmetry of normal mandibular condylar shape. Acta Anat (Basel). 1997;158(4):266-73. doi: 10.1159/000147939.
20. Merigue LF, Conti AC, Oltramari-Navarro PV, Navarro Rde L, Almeida MR. Tomographic evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in malocclusion subjects: condylar morphology and position. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30:S1806-83242016000100222. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0017.
21. Santander P, Quast A, Olbrisch C, Rose M, Moser N, Schliephake H, et al. Comprehensive 3D analysis of condylar morphology in adults with different skeletal patterns - a cross-sectional study. Head Face Med. 2020 Nov 30;16(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s13005-020-00245-z.
22. Lin Y, Lin Y, Fang F, Chen X, He T. Lin Y, Lin Y, Fang F, Chen X, He T. The effect of orthodontic treatment on temporomandibular joint morphology in adult skeletal class II deep overbite patients. Am J Transl Res. 2021 Aug 15;13(8):9070-9075. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8430164/. 7 Mart 2022 tarihinde erişildi.
23. Parvathy RM, Shetty S, Katheesa P. Evaluation of changes seen in TMJ after mandibular advancement in treatment of Class II malocclusions, with functional appliances, a CBCT study. Biomedicine. 2021;41(2):236-42. doi: 10.51248/.v41i2.789