AJ Journal of Medical Sciences

Volume: 2 Issue: 1

  • Open Access
  • Original Article

Comparison of the Morphology of Mandibular Condyle and Glenoid Fossa in Vertical and Sagittal Skeletal Patterns: A CBCT Study

Shebah Catherine1, V Harshitha2,∗, Mithun K Naik3, Pratham Shetty4

1Post Graduate Student, Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, A.J Institute of Dental Sciences, Kuntikana, Mangaluru, 575004, Karnataka, India.
2Reader, Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, A.J Institute of Dental Sciences, Kuntikana, Mangaluru, 575004, Karnataka, India. 
3Reader, Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Yenepoya Dental College, Kuntikana, Mangaluru, 575018, Karnataka, India.
4Assistant Professor, Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, A.J Institute of Dental Sciences, Kuntikana, Mangaluru, 575004, Karnataka, India.

Corresponding author. V Harshitha [email protected]
 

Year: 2025, Page: 22-26, Doi: https://doi.org/10.71325/ajjms.v2i1.25.10

Received: Feb. 6, 2025 Accepted: March 25, 2025 Published: March 31, 2025

Abstract

Background: The temporomandibular joint (TMJ) plays a critical role in maintaining a functional occlusal relationship and stable stomatognathic system. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the morphology of the condyle, glenoid fossa, and joint space in relation to vertical and sagittal skeletal patterns in a sample of 30 orthodontic patients from the Dakshina Kannada population. Materials & Methods: Using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for precise 3D imaging, the study assessed variations in condylar size, fossa dimensions, and joint space across Class I, II, III malocclusions and normodivergent, hypodivergent, and hyperdivergent growth patterns. Results: Results showed no significant difference in condylar width and length between sagittal and vertical groups. However, a significant difference in condylar height was observed between sagittal groups, with Class III patients exhibiting larger condylar height compared to Class I. No significant differences were found in the glenoid fossa dimensions or joint space measurements. These findings suggest that while condylar height varies across sagittal skeletal patterns, other TMJ dimensions remain consistent regardless of vertical and sagittal alignment. Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of understanding TMJ morphology for accurate diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics, especially regarding condylar height variations in different skeletal patterns. Further research with larger sample sizes is recommended to deepen the understanding of TMJ morphology and its impact on orthodontic outcomes.

Keywords: Condylar dimensions, TMJ morphology, skeletal patterns, CBCT, Orthodontic treatment planning.

References

  1. Ma Q, Bimal P, Mei L, Olliver S, Farella M, Li H. Temporomandibular condylar morphology in diverse maxillary-mandibular skeletal patterns: a 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography studyThe Journal of the American Dental Association. 2018;149(7):589–598. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2018.02.016

  2. Ejima K, Schulze D, Stippig A, Matsumoto K, Rottke D, Honda K. Relationship between the thickness of the roof of glenoid fossa, condyle morphology and remaining teeth in asymptomatic European patients based on cone beam CT data setsDentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(3):90929410. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/90929410

  3. Ishibashi H, Takenoshita Y, Ishibashi K, Oka M. Age-related changes in the human mandibular condyle: a morphologic, radiologic, and histologic studyJ Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53(9):1016–1023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(95)90117-5

  4. Santander P, Quast A, Olbrisch C, Rose M, Moser N, Schliephake H, et al. Comprehensive 3D analysis of condylar morphology in adults with different skeletal patterns-a cross-sectional studyHead & Face Medicine. 2020;16(1):33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-020-00245-z

  5. Petersson A. What you can and cannot see in TMJ imaging: an overview related to the RDC/TMD diagnostic systemJ Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(10):771–778. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02108.x

  6. Barghan S, Tetradis S, Mallya S. Application of cone beam computed tomography for assessment of the temporomandibular jointsAust Dent J. 2012;57(1):109–118. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01663.x

  7. Mohsen AM, Ye J, Al-Nasri A, Chu C, Zhang WB. Three-dimensional evaluation of the mandibular condyle in adults with various skeletal patternsKorean Journal of Orthodontics. 2023;53(2):67–76. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10040293/

  8. Noh KJ, Baik HS, Han SS, Jang W, Choi YJ. Differences in mandibular condyle and glenoid fossa morphology in relation to vertical and sagittal skeletal patterns: A cone-beam computed tomography studyKorean Journal of Orthodontics. 2021;51(2):126–160. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.126

  9. Arnett W, Mclaughlin RP. Facial planning for orthodontists and oral surgeonsAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2004;126(3):290–295.

  10. Wen J, Liu S, Ye X. Comparative study of cephalometric measurements using 3 imaging modalitiesJADA. 2017;148(12):913–921. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2017.07.030

Cite this article

Shebah Catherine, V Harshitha, Mithun K Naik, Pratham Shetty. Comparison of the Morphology of Mandibular Condyle and Glenoid Fossa in Vertical and Sagittal Skeletal Patterns: A CBCT Study. AJ J Med Sci. 2025;2(1):22–26

Views
128
Downloads
78
Citations