Oral Radiology

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 43–50 | Cite as

Evaluation of condyle position in patients with Angle Class I, II, and III malocclusion using cone-beam computed tomography panoramic reconstructions

  • Aslıhan Akbulut
  • Delal Dara KılınçEmail author
Original Article



This study was performed to compare the positions of the right and left condyles between male and female patients with different Angle malocclusions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) panoramic reconstructions.


The CBCT images of 60 patients (age of 18–37 years) were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were divided according to their Angle malocclusion classifications (Angle Classes I, II, and III). The condyle-to-eminence, condyle-to-fossa, and condyle-to-meatus distances were measured digitally using i-CAT software.


The left and right condyle-to-fossa distances were the most variable parameters among the Angle classes. The right condyle-to-eminence and right condyle-to-fossa distances were significantly different among the classes. Male patients seemed to have a greater condyle-to-fossa distance on the right side in both the Class I and III groups. The mean distance from the condyle to eminence, condyle to fossa, and condyle to meatus on the right side was the greatest in the Angle Class II group.


In all three types of malocclusion (Angle Classes I, II, and III), the condyles on both the right and left sides were not exactly symmetric or centrally located within the glenoid fossa. This work emphasizes the differences in the condyle position between male and female patients. Furthermore, the symmetry and centricity of the condyles are not dependent on the patient’s sex or type of malocclusion.


Condyle position Temporomandibular joint Panoramic CBCT Ricketts 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Aslıhan Akbulut and Delal Dara Kılınç declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights statements

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Merigue LF, Conti AC, Oltramari-Navarro PVP, Navarro RDL, Almedia MRD. Tomographic evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in malocclusion subjects: condylar morphology and position. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30(1).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arieta-Miranda JM, Silva-Valencia M, Flores-Mir C, Paredes-Sampen NA, Arriola-Guillen LE. Spatial analysis of condyle position according to sagittal skeletal relationship, assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod. 2013;14(1):36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ganugapanta VR, Ponnada SR, Gaddam KPR, Perumalla K, Khan I, Mohammed NA. Computed tomographic evaluation of condylar symmetry and condyle–fossa relationship of the temporomandibular joint in subjects with normal occlusion and malocclusion: a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(2):ZC29–Z33.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Saleh MA, Punithakumar K, Lagravere M, Boulanger P, Jaremko JL, Major PW. Three-dimensional assessment of temporomandibular joint using MRI-CBCT image registration. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169555.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim HO, Lee W, Kook YA, Kim Y. Comparison of the condyle–fossa relationship between skeletal class III malocclusion patients with and without asymmetry: a retrospective three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography study. Korean J Orthod. 2013;43(5):209–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paknahad M, Shahidi S. Association between mandibular condylar position and clinical dysfunction index. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(4):432–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ricketts RM. Variations of the temporomandibular joint as revealed by cephalometric laminagraphy. Am J Orthod. 1950;36(12):877–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katzberg RW. Temporomandibular joint imaging. Radiology. 1989;170(2):297–307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kahl B, Fischbach R, Gerlach KL. Temporomandibular joint morphology in children after treatment of condylar fractures with functional appliance therapy: a follow-up study us computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1995;24(1):37–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farman AG, Scarfe WC. The basics of maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography. Semin Orthod. 2009;15(1):2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006;72(1):75–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mongini F. Remodelling of the mandibular condyle in the adult and its relationship to the condition of the dental arches. Acta Anat (Basel). 1972;82(3):437–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mongini F. Dental abrasion as a factor in remodeling of the mandibular condyle. Acta Anat (Basel). 1975;92(2):292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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):337–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR, Vitral RWF. Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in Class I malocclusion patients: condylar symmetry and condyle–fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(2):192–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR, Vitral RWF. Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in Class II Division 1 and Class III malocclusion patients: condylar symmetry and condyle–fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(2):199–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pullinger AG, Solberg WK, Hollender L, Petersson A. Relationship of mandibular condylar position to dental occlusion factors in an asymptomatic population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;91(3):200–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Incesu L, Taşkaya-Yılmaz N, Öğütcen-Toller M, Uzun E. Relationship of condylar position to disc position and morphology. Eur J Radiol. 2004;51(3):269–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matsumoto MA, Bolognese AM. Bone morphology of the temporomandibular joint and its relation to dental occlusion. Braz Dent J. 1995;6(2):115–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohlmia JT, Ghosh J, Sinha PK, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Tomographic assessment of temporomandibular joints in patients with malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1996;66(1):27–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fraga MR, Rodrigues AF, Ribeiro LC, da Silva Campos MJ, Vitral RWF. Anteroposterior condylar position: a comparative study between subjects with normal occlusion and patients with Class I, Class II Division 1, and Class III malocclusions. Med Sci Monit. 2013;19:903–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vitral RWF, de Souza Telles C, Fraga MR, de Oliveira RSMF., Tanaka OM. Computed tomography evaluation of temporomandibular joint alterations in patients with class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions: condyle–fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(1):48–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vitral RWF, da Silva Campos MJ, Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR. Temporomandibular joint and normal occlusion: is there anything singular about it? A computed tomographic evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(1):18–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ricketts RM. Various conditions of the temporomandibular joint as revealed by cephalometric laminagraphy. Angle Orthod. 1952;22(2):98–115.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williamson EH, Evans DL, Barton WA, Williams BH. The effect of bite plane use on terminal hinge axis location. Angle Orthod. 1977;47(1):25–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pullinger AG, Seligman DA, John MT, Harkins S. Multifactorial modeling of temporomandibular anatomic and orthopedic relationships in normal versus undifferentiated disk displacement joints. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(3):289–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mah JK, Huang JC, Choo H. Practical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141:7S–13S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hodges RJ, Atchison KA, White SC. Impact of cone-beam computed tomography on orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(5):665–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barghan S, Merrill R, Tetradis S. Cone beam computed tomography imaging in the evaluation of the temporomandibular joint. Tex Dent J. 2012;129(3):289–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaur A, Natt AS, Mehra SK, Maheshwari K, Singh G. Improved visualization and assessment of condylar position in the glenoid fossa for different occlusions: a CBCT study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(8):679–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mischkowski RA, Pulsfort R, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Brochhagen HG, Keeve E, et al. Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104(4):551–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Caruso S, Storti E, Nota A, Ehsani S, Gatto R. Temporomandibular joint anatomy assessed by CBCT images. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2916953.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Al-Rawi NH, Uthman AT, Sodeify SM. Spatial analysis of mandibular condyles in patients with temporomandibular disorders and normal controls using cone beam computed tomography. Eur J Dent. 2017;11(1):99–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of DentistryIstanbul Medipol UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of DentistryIstanbul Medipol UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations