Limits...
Spatial analysis of condyle position according to sagittal skeletal relationship, assessed by cone beam computed tomography.

Arieta-Miranda JM, Silva-Valencia M, Flores-Mir C, Paredes-Sampen NA, Arriola-Guillen LE - Prog Orthod (2013)

Bottom Line: The upper distance of the condyle to the glenoid fossa was smaller in the class II and class III compared with the class I group.No statistically significant difference was noted in the posterior condylar distance between the groups.The angle of the eminence showed differences between the three groups, while the eminence height showed significant difference when comparing the class I with class III group.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Universidad Mayor de San Marcos (UNMSM), Lima, Peru. jam-299@hotmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Background: The study aims to compare the condylar position in patients with different anteroposterior sagittal skeletal relationships through a cone beam computed generated tomography (CBCT) imaging generated space analysis.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of clinically justified, previously taken CBCT images of 45 subjects. Based on a proper sample calculation, three groups of 15 CBCT images each were made according to their ANB angle and facial pattern: class I (normo facial pattern) and class II and III (long facial pattern). The CBCT images were of adult patients between 18 and 35 years old, with full permanent dentition at maximum occlusal intercuspidation. Anatomical references previously used by Ricketts for the condyle position inside the glenoid fossae were measured digitally through the EzImplant software. Analysis of variance, Tukey's, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests were used.

Results: The upper distance of the condyle to the glenoid fossa was smaller in the class II and class III compared with the class I group. The anterior distance of the condyle to the articular eminence showed significant differences when comparing the class I with the class II and class III groups. No statistically significant difference was noted in the posterior condylar distance between the groups. The angle of the eminence showed differences between the three groups, while the eminence height showed significant difference when comparing the class I with class III group.

Conclusions: Spatial differences existed for the condylar position in relation to the glenoid fossa for skeletal class I, class II, and class III, but these spatial differences may not be clinically relevant.

Show MeSH
Orientation of the skull in the Po-Or perpendicular to the sagittal Cg and Op. (A) Axial view of the midsagittal plane. (B) Front view of the Frankfurt plane.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4384926&req=5

Fig1: Orientation of the skull in the Po-Or perpendicular to the sagittal Cg and Op. (A) Axial view of the midsagittal plane. (B) Front view of the Frankfurt plane.

Mentions: The patient's head scan was positioned based on the Frankfurt plane (Po-Or) perpendicular to the sagittal midline previously located in the axial view point opisthion (Op) and crista galli (Cg) (Figure 1); then the patient's head scan was turned to the right side in 3D view for the analysis of Steiner and to find the ANB angle (Figure 2). For class II and III skeletal relationship, the vertical facial pattern (S-Go/N-Me) was determined (Figure 3).Figure 1


Spatial analysis of condyle position according to sagittal skeletal relationship, assessed by cone beam computed tomography.

Arieta-Miranda JM, Silva-Valencia M, Flores-Mir C, Paredes-Sampen NA, Arriola-Guillen LE - Prog Orthod (2013)

Orientation of the skull in the Po-Or perpendicular to the sagittal Cg and Op. (A) Axial view of the midsagittal plane. (B) Front view of the Frankfurt plane.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4384926&req=5

Fig1: Orientation of the skull in the Po-Or perpendicular to the sagittal Cg and Op. (A) Axial view of the midsagittal plane. (B) Front view of the Frankfurt plane.
Mentions: The patient's head scan was positioned based on the Frankfurt plane (Po-Or) perpendicular to the sagittal midline previously located in the axial view point opisthion (Op) and crista galli (Cg) (Figure 1); then the patient's head scan was turned to the right side in 3D view for the analysis of Steiner and to find the ANB angle (Figure 2). For class II and III skeletal relationship, the vertical facial pattern (S-Go/N-Me) was determined (Figure 3).Figure 1

Bottom Line: The upper distance of the condyle to the glenoid fossa was smaller in the class II and class III compared with the class I group.No statistically significant difference was noted in the posterior condylar distance between the groups.The angle of the eminence showed differences between the three groups, while the eminence height showed significant difference when comparing the class I with class III group.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Universidad Mayor de San Marcos (UNMSM), Lima, Peru. jam-299@hotmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Background: The study aims to compare the condylar position in patients with different anteroposterior sagittal skeletal relationships through a cone beam computed generated tomography (CBCT) imaging generated space analysis.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of clinically justified, previously taken CBCT images of 45 subjects. Based on a proper sample calculation, three groups of 15 CBCT images each were made according to their ANB angle and facial pattern: class I (normo facial pattern) and class II and III (long facial pattern). The CBCT images were of adult patients between 18 and 35 years old, with full permanent dentition at maximum occlusal intercuspidation. Anatomical references previously used by Ricketts for the condyle position inside the glenoid fossae were measured digitally through the EzImplant software. Analysis of variance, Tukey's, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests were used.

Results: The upper distance of the condyle to the glenoid fossa was smaller in the class II and class III compared with the class I group. The anterior distance of the condyle to the articular eminence showed significant differences when comparing the class I with the class II and class III groups. No statistically significant difference was noted in the posterior condylar distance between the groups. The angle of the eminence showed differences between the three groups, while the eminence height showed significant difference when comparing the class I with class III group.

Conclusions: Spatial differences existed for the condylar position in relation to the glenoid fossa for skeletal class I, class II, and class III, but these spatial differences may not be clinically relevant.

Show MeSH