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
Mean values of the condyle position found during analysis of the TMJ using CBCT images. (A) Anterior distance. (B) Upper distance. (C) Posterior distance.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig9: Mean values of the condyle position found during analysis of the TMJ using CBCT images. (A) Anterior distance. (B) Upper distance. (C) Posterior distance.

Mentions: A statistically significant difference (p = 0.044) was identified regarding the height of the articular eminence comparing the class I with the class III group, with the class III group having a smaller value. Finally, the mean values of the condylar spatial analysis of the CBCT images (Figure 9) and the values obtained from laminography by Ricketts [15] showed no statistically significant differences, as can be seen in Table 4.Figure 9


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)

Mean values of the condyle position found during analysis of the TMJ using CBCT images. (A) Anterior distance. (B) Upper distance. (C) Posterior distance.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig9: Mean values of the condyle position found during analysis of the TMJ using CBCT images. (A) Anterior distance. (B) Upper distance. (C) Posterior distance.
Mentions: A statistically significant difference (p = 0.044) was identified regarding the height of the articular eminence comparing the class I with the class III group, with the class III group having a smaller value. Finally, the mean values of the condylar spatial analysis of the CBCT images (Figure 9) and the values obtained from laminography by Ricketts [15] showed no statistically significant differences, as can be seen in Table 4.Figure 9

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