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

Related in: MedlinePlus

Analysis in sagittal view of the right condyle. At a thickness of 5 mm (MIP view) and 1.5-mm (zoom).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig6: Analysis in sagittal view of the right condyle. At a thickness of 5 mm (MIP view) and 1.5-mm (zoom).

Mentions: Thereafter, the axial view was used to locate the condyles, taking as reference the point ‘J’ (the joint between the vomer and the sphenoid), later confirmed in the sagittal view [17]. This reference point was then used to reproduce the imaging cuts at the same level for the subsequent measurements (Figure 4). The rotation axes were marked on the midpoint of the right condyle to obtain the sagittal cuts and proceed with the analysis of the condylar position (Figure 5). A thickness of 5 mm in the multiplane image (MIP) and a 1.5-mm zoom were used (Figure 6). The right condyle was selected to standardize measurements.Figure 4


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)

Analysis in sagittal view of the right condyle. At a thickness of 5 mm (MIP view) and 1.5-mm (zoom).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig6: Analysis in sagittal view of the right condyle. At a thickness of 5 mm (MIP view) and 1.5-mm (zoom).
Mentions: Thereafter, the axial view was used to locate the condyles, taking as reference the point ‘J’ (the joint between the vomer and the sphenoid), later confirmed in the sagittal view [17]. This reference point was then used to reproduce the imaging cuts at the same level for the subsequent measurements (Figure 4). The rotation axes were marked on the midpoint of the right condyle to obtain the sagittal cuts and proceed with the analysis of the condylar position (Figure 5). A thickness of 5 mm in the multiplane image (MIP) and a 1.5-mm zoom were used (Figure 6). The right condyle was selected to standardize measurements.Figure 4

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
Related in: MedlinePlus