Three-dimensional evaluation of the mandibular condyle in adults with various skeletal patterns

Abstract

Objective: Morphometric and morphological evaluation of the mandibular condyle in adults and to identify its correlation with skeletal malocclusion patterns. Methods: Cone-beam computed tomography scans of 135 adult patients were used in this study and classified into groups according to four criteria: (1) sex (male and female); (2) sagittal skeletal discrepancy (Class I, Class II, and Class III); (3) vertical skeletal discrepancy (hyperdivergent, normodivergent, and hypodivergent); and age (group 1 ≤ 20 years, 21 ≤ group 2 < 30, and group 3 ≥ 30 years). The morphometrical variables were mandibular condyle height and width, and the morphological variable was the mandibular condyle shape in coronal and sagittal sections. Three-dimensional standard tessellation language files were created using itk-snap (open-source software), and measurements were performed using Meshmixer (open-source software). Results: The mandibular condyle height was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in patients with class III malocclusion than in those with class I or II malocclusion; the mandibular condyle width was not significantly different among different sexes, age groups, and sagittal and vertical malocclusions. There were no statistical associations between various mandibular condyle shapes and the sexes, age groups, and skeletal malocclusions. Conclusions: The condylar height was greatest in patients with class III malocclusion. The condylar height and width were greater among males than in females. The mandibular condyle shapes observed in sagittal and coronal sections did not affect the skeletal malocclusion patterns.

Volumetric comparison of mandibular condyles and mandibles in the different skeletal classes in the Saudi population

“…This current study found that ANB is not significantly correlated to condylar volume, contrary to the study by Mohsen et al (2023) . This could be due to the fact that Mohsen et al (2023) evaluated only a two-dimensional variable (height). Meanwhile, the current study evaluated the total condylar volume.…”

“…This finding highlights another relationship between the condyle and skeletal patterns in the sagittal dimension in addition to relationships found in previous studies. For example, in a study that evaluated the dimensions and shape of the condyle within the skeletal classes using the ANB value ( Mohsen et al, 2023 ) it was found that condylar height was greater in class III than class I or class II skeletal patterns. This current study found that ANB is not significantly correlated to condylar volume, contrary to the study by Mohsen et al (2023) .…”

“…For example, in a study that evaluated the dimensions and shape of the condyle within the skeletal classes using the ANB value ( Mohsen et al, 2023 ) it was found that condylar height was greater in class III than class I or class II skeletal patterns. This current study found that ANB is not significantly correlated to condylar volume, contrary to the study by Mohsen et al (2023) . This could be due to the fact that Mohsen et al (2023) evaluated only a two-dimensional variable (height).…”

Comparison of temporomandibular joints in relation to ages and vertical facial types in skeletal class II female patients: a multiple-cross-sectional study

“…It has been suggested that the condylar functional load during mastication is determined by craniofacial structure, and changes in the mechanical functional environment might affect the diversity of joint morphology and position [ 23 ]. Due to differences in craniofacial size, bite force and facial muscle strength [ 33 ], sex may also influence the characteristics of the TMJ [ 10 , 26 , 34 ]. A greater prevalence of TMD was observed in females [ 35 ] and in skeletal class II patients [ 8 ], which overlaps with the sample population in this study.…”

“…Most studies have shown that TMJ morphology and condylar position are affected by skeletal facial type [ 9 ], although the actual effect remains controversial [ 18 ]. These studies mostly involved only one age group [ 3 , 4 , 9 , 19 – 25 ], which necessarily could not show dynamic changes in the TMJ with age, divided only by sagittal [ 4 , 9 , 10 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 27 ] or vertical skeletal patterns [ 4 , 9 , 10 , 20 , 24 , 26 ], which probably increased potential confounding factors. To our knowledge, although some studies have taken age into account [ 10 , 28 ], the differential changes in the TMJ with age in skeletal class II patients with different vertical facial types remain unclear.…”