Evaluating condylar position in different skeletal malocclusion patterns: A cephalometric study

Abstract

Context The cranial base and variations in its morphology affect the anterior-posterior positioning of jaws causing changes in the glenoid fossa and condylar position. Aims To evaluate the condylar position in patients with different skeletal sagittal malocclusion patterns. Materials and Methods Pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 112 subjects (both males and females) were categorized into three classes (Class I, Class II, Class III) based on their ANB angulation and studied for N-S-Ar (saddle angle), S-Ar-Go (articular angle), S-Ar (posterior cranial base length). Statistical Analysis Shapiro-Wilk test was done to check for normality of the distribution of values. Groups were evaluated using parametric tests (one-way ANOVA). Significance for all tests was predetermined as P < 0.05. Results N-S-Ar and S-Ar-Go and also S-Ar did not vary significantly in all the three classes. N-S-Ar and S-Ar-Go angles have shown a significant negative correlation in all the three classes. Conclusions There is no significant difference in condylar position in different skeletal malocclusion patterns. N-S-Ar and S-Ar-Go angles show a negative correlation in any skeletal malocclusion pattern.

Cranial base measurements in different anteroposterior skeletal relationships using Bjork-Jarabak analysis

“…In the current study, the articular angle was similar among the different AP skeletal relationships. This was in agreement with Hegde et al 27 Rodriguez-Cardenas et al, 28 on the other hand, found that articular angle was increased in the Class I skeletal relationship compared with other skeletal relationships. The differences between the current results and the previous studies could have been related to the nature of the samples and included age groups.…”

Evaluation of mandibular condylar position in different malocclusion with Gelb’s grid

“…They did not find condylar position with respect to glenoid fossa. 8 Wigal et al did his study on subjects with Class II malocclusion treated with herbst appliance found significant positioning of condyle and glenoid fossa in compare to control group. 9 Vankadara et al did his study on CBCT and states that centric position is most common position of condyle and 4,7 position is the most common according to Gelb's 4,7 grid.…”

“…In present study we found that for Group I condyle was positioned normally (4,7) in 86.66% of subjects and was displaced posteriorly (5,8) 13.33% of subjects. For Group II condyle was displaced posteriorly (5,8) in 86.66% of subjects and in normal position (4,7) for remaining subjects. For Group III subjects condyle was again found in posteriorly displaced 66.66% of subjects and normally positioned in rest.…”

3D CBCT Evaluation of Condyle Position in Skeletal Class I & Class III Growing Subjects

“…Some studies have reported no significant difference between the condylar position in Class I and Class III subjects, 7,8 while others have reported the difference. 5,9 These discrepancies might be due to differences in measuring technique and parameters used to assess the condylar position.…”