Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 7, pp 2653–2661 | Cite as

Assessment of condylar morphology and position using MSCT in an Asian population

  • Qi Liu
  • Xiaoer Wei
  • Juanjuan Guan
  • Ran Wang
  • Derong Zou
  • Lvfeng Yu
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the volume, surface, morphometric index (MI), and position of the condyle in a normal population by applying Mimics 17.0 software. Then, the difference between left and right sides, sex, and age can be explored, which will contribute to establish the reference value of condylar morphology and position in normal individuals, and help us to study characteristics of condylar morphology and position in abnormal individuals.

Materials and methods

Three-hundred subjects were enrolled in our study from the radiology department of Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital. They were divided into three groups according to the age: group 1 (18–24 years old), group 2 (25–34 years old), and group 3 (35–44 years old). Each group included 100 subjects (with 50 males and 50 females). They were examined using multislice computed tomography (MSCT) after that. All images of condyle were reconstructed by Mimics 17.0 software, so as to measure the volume, surface, and MI of condyle, and to analyze the position of condyle in the articular fossa by means of joint spaces.

Results

The differences of condylar volume, surface, and MI between left and right sides were not obvious (P > 0.05). The condylar volume and surface were greater in males than females (P < 0.05), while their condylar MI existed no difference (P > 0.05). No statistical differences were found in volume and surface among three age groups. However, the MI of group 1 was statistically lower than that of group 3 (P < 0.05). On the other hand, no significant differences were found between left and right condylar position (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, there were significant differences of condylar position regarding the gender and age (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

This study showed no significant differences in condylar morphology and position between left and right sides, but factors of gender and age were proven to have a certain influence on the morphology and position of the condyle. This information can be clinically useful in establishing the diagnostic criteria for condylar morphology and position in the normal Asian population.

Clinical relevance

Examination of condylar morphology and position is important for evaluating the abnormalities and bony changes that affect the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). So, this will be conducive to the diagnosis and the evaluation of therapeutic effect of temporomandibular joint diseases. Also, it is important to evaluate these indexes prior to commencing orthodontic treatment, because TMJ abnormalities play a critical role in orthodontic treatment planning.

Keywords

Condyle Volume Surface Morphometric index Condylar position 

Notes

Funding

We acknowledge the funding support from Project of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning (Grant No. 201540177).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The research was approved by the local Ethical Committee of Shanghai Jiao Jong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital (No. 2015-KY-003(T)).

Informed consent

All the participants took part voluntarily in this study, and the verbal consent from each of them was taken after being informed about the nature of the study detailedly.

References

  1. 1.
    Zane Krisjane IU, Krumina G, Bieza A, Zepa K, Rogovska I (2007) Condylar and mandibular morphological criteria in the 2D and 3D MSCT imaging for patients with class II division 1 subdivision malocclusion. Stomatologija 9(3):67–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexiou KE, Stamatakis HC, Tsiklakis K (2009) Evaluation of the severity of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritic changes related to age using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38(3):141–147.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/59263880 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ricketts RM Variations of the temporomandibular joint as revealed by cephalometric laminagraphy. Am J Den 36:877–898Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaya FN, Yavascaoglu B, Turker G, Yildirim A, Gurbet A, Mogol EB, Ozcan B (2010) Intravenous dexmedetomidine, but not midazolam, prolongs bupivacaine spinal anesthesia. Can J Anaesth 57(1):39–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-009-9231-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schlueter B, Kim KB, Oliver D, Sortiropoulos G (2008) Cone beam computed tomography 3D reconstruction of the mandibular condyle. Angle Orthod 78(5):880–888.  https://doi.org/10.2319/072007-339.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tecco S, Saccucci M, Nucera R, Polimeni A, Pagnoni M, Cordasco G et al (2010) Condylar volume and surface in Caucasian young adult subjects. BMC Med Imaging 10:1471–2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohlmia JTGJ, Sinha PK, Nanda RS, Currier GF (1996) Tomographic assessment of temporomandibular joints in patients with malocclusion. Angle Orthod 66(1):27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1996)066<0027:TAOTJI>2.3.CO;2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menezes AV, de Almeida SM, Boscolo FN, Haiter-Neto F, Ambrosano GM, Manzi FR (2008) Comparison of transcranial radiograph and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of mandibular condyle position. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37(5):293–299.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/31850388 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu CK, Hsu JT, Shen YW, Chen JH, Shen WC, Fuh LJ (2012) Assessments of inclinations of the mandibular fossa by computed tomography in an Asian population. Clin Oral Investig 16(2):443–450.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0518-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Incesu L, Taşkaya-Yılmaz N, Öğütcen-Toller M, Uzun E (2004) Relationship of condylar position to disc position and morphology. Eur J Radiol 51(3):269–273.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(03)00218-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shahidi S, Vojdani M, Paknahad M (2013) Correlation between articular eminence steepness measured with cone-beam computed tomography and clinical dysfunction index in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116(1):91–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.04.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tasaki MMWP (1993) Temporomandibular joint: diagnostic accuracy with sagittal and coronal MR imaging. Radiology 186(3):723–729.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.186.3.8430181 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zain-Alabdeen EH, Alsadhan RI (2012) A comparative study of accuracy of detection of surface osseous changes in the temporomandibular joint using multidetector CT and cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 41(3):185–191.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/24985971 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barghan S, Merrill R, Tetradis S (2010) Cone beam computed tomography imaging in the evaluation of the temporomandibular joint. J Calif Dent Assoc 38:33–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsiklakis K, Syriopoulos K, Stamatakis HC (2004) Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33(3):196–201.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/27403192 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hintze H, Wiese M, Wenzel A (2007) Cone beam CT and conventional tomography for the detection of morphological temporomandibular joint changes. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36(4):192–197.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/25523853 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Honey OB, Scarfe WC, Hilgers MJ, Klueber K, Silveira AM, Haskell BS, Farman AG (2007) Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the temporomandibular joint: comparisons with panoramic radiology and linear tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132(4):429–438.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR, Vitral RW (2009) Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in class I malocclusion patients: condylar symmetry and condyle-fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136(2):192–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Song WC, Kim JI, Kim SH, Shin DH, Hu KS, Kim HJ, Lee JY, Koh KS (2009) Female-to-male proportions of the head and face in Koreans. J Craniofac Surg 20(2):356–361.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181843620 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fanghanel J, Gedrange T (2007) On the development, morphology and function of the temporomandibular joint in the light of the orofacial system. Ann Anat 189(4):314–319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2007.02.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Solberg WK, Hansson TL, Nordstrom B (1985) The temporomandibular joint in young adults at autopsy: a morphologic classification and evaluation. J Oral Rehab 12(4):303–321.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1985.tb01285.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weinberg LA (1979) An evaluation of occlusal factors in TMJ dysfunction-pain syndrome. J Prosthet Dent 41(2):198–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90308-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blaschke DD, Solberg WK, Sanders B (1980) Arthorgraphy of the temporomandibular joint: review and current status. J Am Dent Assoc 100(3):388–395.  https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1980.0094 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herbosa EG, Rotskoff KS, Ramos BF, Ambrookian HS (1990) Condylar position in superior maxillary repositioning and its effect on the temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48(7):690–696.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(90)90051-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ikeda K, Kawamura A (2013) Disc displacement and changes in condylar position. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42(3):84227642.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/84227642 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scapino RP (1983) Histopathology associated with malposition of the human temporomandibular joint disc. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 55(4):382–397.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(83)90193-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cho BH, Jung YH (2012) Osteoarthritic changes and condylar positioning of the temporomandibular joint in Korean children and adolescents. Imaging Sci Dent 42(3):169–174.  https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2012.42.3.169 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and interpretation. Elsevier Health Science 2009; 6th editionGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paknahad M, Shahidi S, Iranpour S, Mirhadi S, Paknahad M. Cone-beam computed tomographic assessment of mandibular condylar position in patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction and in healthy subjects. Int J Dent 2015; 2015:301796, 1, 6, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/301796
  30. 30.
    Di Paolo CCG, Panti F, Rampello A, Falisi G, Pilloni A, Cascone P, Iannetti G (2013) Epidemiological analysis on 2375 patients with TMJ disorders: basic statistical aspects. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 4(1):161–169.  https://doi.org/10.11138/ads.0161 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qi Liu
    • 1
  • Xiaoer Wei
    • 2
  • Juanjuan Guan
    • 1
  • Ran Wang
    • 1
  • Derong Zou
    • 1
  • Lvfeng Yu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of StomatologyShanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s HospitalShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyShanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s HospitalShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations