The false and the true bifid condyles

Dennison, John M.; Mahoney, Patricia; Herbison, Peter; Dias, George J.

doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2008.02.001

Cited by 24 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Condylar morphology ranging from grooving to separate condylar heads in both the sagittal and coronal planes was referred to as BMC. In 2007, Dennison et al [13] examined the mandibles of 38 male and 16 female adult pre-European-contact Pacific Islanders, and 24 male and 29 female modern Indian mandibles and recorded the frequency, prominence, and position of any condylar groove in both the coronal and sagittal planes. On completion of the study, Dennison et al [13] suggested that cases in which the two segments of the condyle were situated anteriorly and posteriorly in the anatomical sagittal plane should be considered to be BMC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trifid mandibular condyle

Sezgin

Kayıpmaz

2009

Oral Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bifid and trifid condyles are rare disorders of the mandible. Their etiology and pathogenesis are unclear. They can be associated with temporomandibular joint disorders or can be diagnosed incidentally on routine radiographic examination. This article presents a case of trifidism of the right mandibular condylar head of a 31-year-old woman with a history of childhood trauma to the head and neck. The patient was asymptomatic. The abnormal formation of the condyle was diagnosed incidentally on a panoramic radiograph and was evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trifid mandibular condyle

Sezgin

Kayıpmaz

2009

Oral Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the diagnosis of BMC requires that the condylar heads be positioned in an anteroposterior orientation, as proposed by Dennison et al, 12 then our case would fall short in qualifying. However, we believe that Dennison et al's postulate does not take into account the fact that mandibular condyles are oriented in an oblique fashion, thus necessitating that TMJ studies be reformatted in an oblique, coronal (parallel to the horizontal long axis of the mandibular condyle) orientation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…1 Decades later in 1998, Stefanou et al 11 described BMC as the splitting of the condylar head which can range from a shallow groove to the formation of two distinct condyles with but a single separate neck irrespective of whether the heads are oriented mediolaterally or anteroposteriorly. In 2008, Dennison et al 12 suggested that ''true'' BMC must be orientated anteroposteriorly and that those presenting in the mediolateral position be excluded from the grouping and termed ''condylar notching''. 2 years later in 2010, Lopez-Lopez et al 10 declared that irrespective of the spatial orientation of the normal and secondary condylar heads, both have to emerge from the condylar neck in order to be considered ''true'' BMC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilateral bifid mandibular condyles diagnosed with three-dimensional reconstruction

Tanner

Friedlander²,

Chang³

2012

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bifid mandibular condyles (BMCs) are rare anomalies. The overwhelming majority of prior reports described their predominantly unilateral occurrence diagnosed by panoramic radiography. We present an even rarer case of bilateral BMC initially identified by panoramic radiography and confirmed with colour-enhanced three-dimensional CT. These images substantiate the theory that the secondary condyles arise from the neck of the mandible (Lopez-Lopez et al. Bifid condyle: review of the literature of the last 10 years and report of two cases.

show abstract

“…Although Dennison et al (2008), expressed that only the anteroposterior division of a condyle is a "true" bifid condyle, BMC has been generally considered in cases in which a condyle arises to be duplicated anteroposteriorly or mediolaterally (Cho & Jung). In our study, all of the BMCs showed a mediolateral orientation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Prevalence of Bifid Mandibular Condyle Detected on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images in a Turkish Population

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY:The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of the BMC phenomenon in a Turkish patient population. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 2634 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed. The Chi-squared test was used to determine potential differences in the distribution of BMCs when stratified by sex and side. Among the 2634 patients, 42 (1.7%) patients were found to have BMC. Of these 42 patients, 22 were female (0.8%) and 20 were male (0.7%) with age ranging from 29 to 68 years (mean age 47.47). Among the 42 patients, 39 (92.8%) of the BMCs were unilateral and three (7.1%) were bilateral. Approximately 24 cases (53.3%) were on the right side, and 21 cases (46.6%) were on the left side. All of the BMCs showed a mediolateral orientation. The mean depth of the BMC was 2.55 mm in males and 2.68 mm in females. 2 patients have symptoms whereas the other patients were atraumatic and asymptomatic. BMC is a rare condition that might be more prevalent in the Turkish population. Greater detailed information regarding BMC could be obtained by the widespread use of CBCT in epidemiological studies.

show abstract

The false and the true bifid condyles

Cited by 24 publications

References 41 publications

Trifid mandibular condyle

Trifid mandibular condyle

Bilateral bifid mandibular condyles diagnosed with three-dimensional reconstruction

Evaluation of the Prevalence of Bifid Mandibular Condyle Detected on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images in a Turkish Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About