Morphological Variations of the Mandibular Condyle and Coronoid Process in CBCT Images: A Retrospective Analysis

Year 2025, Volume: 49 Issue: 3, 158 - 164, 12.12.2025

Hatice Boyacıoğlu Erden , Özlem Büşra Doğan , Sema Dural

https://doi.org/10.65022/clindentres.1733971

Abstract

Background and Aim: The temporomandibular joint exhibits complex biomechanics and anatomical variability, making it susceptible to various morphological changes. This study aimed to investigate the morphological variations of the mandibular condyle and coronoid process using cone-beam computed tomography, and to evaluate their distribution across gender and dental status.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 150 cone-beam computed tomography scans from individuals aged 18–80 years. Condylar morphology was assessed in both sagittal and coronal planes, while coronoid morphology was evaluated in the sagittal plane. Morphological classifications followed established radiological criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests (p≤0.05), and power analysis was conducted using G*Power software.
Results: In sagittal views, the round condylar shape was the most prevalent (63.3%), followed by beak-like (29.3%), flat (6.0%), and concave (1.3%) shapes. In coronal views, convex was the most common (48.3%), followed by angled (18.7%), flat (18.3%), rounded (13%), and concave (1.7%) shapes. Coronoid morphology was classified as round (52%) and triangular (48%). No statistically significant association was found between condylar or coronoid morphology and gender or edentulism (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Cone-beam computed tomography provides accurate morphological evaluation of temporomandibular joint structures. Understanding condylar and coronoid shape variations is clinically relevant for diagnosis, treatment planning, and population-based anatomical assessments.

Keywords

CBCT , coronoid process , edentulism , gender differences , mandibular condyle , morphology

Ethical Statement

The present study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (GO-21/399).

Supporting Institution

not applicable

Thanks

not applicable

References

• 1. Okeson JP. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier/Mosby; 2013. p. 1-20.
• 2. Safi AF, Kauke M, Grandoch A, Nickenig HJ, Zöller JE, Kreppel M. Age-related volumetric changes in mandibular condyles. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29: 510-513.
• 3. Yalcin ED, Ararat E. Cone-beam computed tomography study of mandibular condylar morphology. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30: 2621- 2624.
• 4. Tassoker M, Kabakci ADA, Akin D, Sener S. Evaluation of mandibular notch, coronoid process, and mandibular condyle configurations with cone beam computed tomography. Biomed Res 2017; 28: 8327-8335.
• 5. Shubhasini AR, Birur P, Shubha G, Keerthi G, Sunny SP, Nayak DS. Study of three dimensional morphology of mandibular condyle using cone beam computed tomography. MJDS 2016; 1: 7-12.
• 6. Tao J, Wu J, Zhang X. Mandibular condylar morphology for bruxers with different grinding patterns. Cranio 2016; 34: 219-226.
• 7. Marques AP, Perrella A, Arita ES, Pereira MFSDM, Cavalcanti MDGP. Assessment of simulated mandibular condyle bone lesions by cone beam computed tomography. Braz Oral Res 2010; 24: 467-474.
• 8. Rodrigues VP, Freitas BV, Oliveira ICV, Dos Santos PCF, Melo HVF, Bosio J. Tooth loss and craniofacial factors associated with changes in mandibular condylar morphology. Cranio 2019; 37: 310-316.
• 9. Arayapisit T, Ngamsom S, Duangthip P, Wongdit S, Wattanachaisiri S, Joonthongvirat Y et al. Understanding the mandibular condyle morphology on panoramic images: A cone beam computed tomography comparison study. Cranio 2023; 41: 354-361.
• 10. Hegde S, Praveen BN, Shetty SR. Morphological and radiological variations of mandibular condyles in health and diseases: a systematic review. Dentistry 2013; 3: 154.
• 11. Yale SH, Allison BD, Hauptfuehrer JD. An epidemiological assessment of mandibular condyle morphology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1966; 21: 169-177.
• 12. Parmentier GI, Nys M, Verstraete L, Politis C. A systematic review of treatment and outcomes in patients with mandibular coronoid process hyperplasia. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022; 48: 133-148.
• 13. Nirala SK, Yuan L, Mushraf S. Morphological variations of coronoid process in dry adult human mandibles: a narrative review. J Nepal Med Assoc 2025; 63: 357-362.
• 14. Standring S, editor. Gray’s Anatomy E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences 2021.
• 15. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. 7th ed. St.Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences 2014.
• 16. Koyama J, Nishiyama H, Hayashi T. Follow-up study of condylar bony changes using helical computed tomography in patients with temporomandibular disorder. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 472-477.
• 17. Umamaheswari TN, Evanjelin PJ. Distinctive anatomical patterns of the mandibular coronoid process, condyle, and sigmoid notch: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging for advanced personal identification. Cureus 2024; 16: e60978.
• 18. Sa SC, Melo SLS, Melo DPD, Freitas DQ, Campos PSF. Relationship between articular eminence inclination and alterations of the mandibular condyle: a CBCT study. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31: e25.
• 19. Tsiklakis K, Syriopoulos K, Stamatakis HC. Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 196- 201.
• 20. Görürgöz C, Tuna EB, Yılmaz E, Gençay K, Dursun E, Altan H et al. Degenerative changes of the mandibular condyle in relation to the temporomandibular joint space, gender and age: A multicenter CBCT study. Dent Med Probl 2023; 60: 127–135.
• 21. Cohnen M, Kemper J, Möbes O, Pawelzik J, Mödder U. Radiation dose in dental radiology. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 634-637.