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.
Keywords: Growth and development, Temporomandibular joint, Class III malocclusion, Three-dimensional cephalometrics
INTRODUCTION
The concept of occlusion in dentistry pertains to the relationship between all components of the masticatory system in normal and abnormal functions.1-3 The bone and muscle components may dynamically affect each other’s function, resulting in morphological changes of the bone.4,5 Owing to greater masticatory forces, males show greater mandibular growth and remodeling than do females.6 Morphological changes in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) of young adults may result in malocclusion.7 Morphological alterations occur based on simple developmental variability, such as remodeling of the condyle to adapt to developmental variations, malocclusion, trauma, and other developmental abnormalities and diseases.
The mandibular condylar morphology varies significantly between individuals8,9 and is associated with age, sex, facial type, occlusal force, functional load, malocclusion type, and right and left sides.10 In young adults, the mandibular condyle plays an essential role in the stability of long-term orthodontic and orthognathic treatments.11,12 Many orthodontic studies have been conducted on TMJ spaces, morphological shapes, and volumetric size.11,13-17 Anthropological studies have analyzed the mandibular condyle shape in different populations.18-23 However, conventional two-dimensional imaging methods, such as panoramic radiography, are inadequate to accurately examine the three-dimensional (3D) mandibular condyle morphology.10,24 Therefore, this study aimed to morphologically and morphometrically investigate the mandibular condyle based on sex and different sagittal and vertical skeletal malocclusions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Each orthodontist must understand the normal variations of the mandibular condyle to avoid misdiagnosis and provide more efficient orthodontic treatment.7,11,12
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample-size calculation
A power analysis using G*Power software (Power version 3.1.9.7; University of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany) was used to estimate the required sample size to detect differences between group means using analysis of variance (ANOVA), with an effect size f = 0.40; 102 participants were required to achieve a power exceeding 0.90, p = 0.05.
Participants
This study was approved by the Nanjing Medical University Research Ethical Committee, Jiangsu province-affiliated hospital (PJ2018-059-001). All procedures followed in this experiment were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its later versions. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for inclusion in the study.
The study sample comprised 135 patients, including 54 males (23.7 ± 4.39 years) and 81 females (21 ± 3.89 years) who visited our institution seeking various dental treatments. They were classified according to the sagittal skeletal relationship (A point-nasion-B point [ANB] angle): skeletal Class I (1° ≤ ANB ≤ 4°), skeletal Class II (ANB > 4°), and skeletal Class III (ANB < 1°). They were also classified according to the vertical skeletal relationship based on the sella-nasion and mandibular plane (SN-MP angle) as follows: hypodivergent (SN-MP < 27°), normodivergent (27° ≤ SN-MP ≤ 37°), and hyperdivergent (SN-MP > 37°). According to age, the sample was classified into three groups (group 1 ≤ 20 years; 21 years ≤ group 2 < 30 years; and group 3 ≥ 30 years) (Table 1). CBCT images were obtained using NewTom VGi Evo (Cefla S.C., Imola, Italy) with the following exposure parameter settings: 17 seconds scan time, 18 × 16-cm field of view, and 0.5-mm voxel size. The patients were instructed to sit upright, bite in centric occlusion (CO), and look forward to maintain the Frankfort horizontal plane parallel to the floor. The CBCT data were saved in Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files. Patients were excluded if they had a history of previous orthodontic treatment, CO-centric relationship discrepancy, trauma to the dentofacial region, TMJ disorders, and diseases affecting bone metabolism.
Table 1.
Sample distribution
| Groups | Variables | Sex | ANB angle | SN-MP angle | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | 1 ≤ ANB ≤ 4 | ANB > 4 | ANB < 1 | SN-MP < 27° | 27° ≤ SN-MP ≤ 37° | SN-MP > 37° | ||||||||
| Class I | Class II | Class III | Hypodivergent | Normodivergent | Hyperdivergent | ||||||||||
| SN-MP angle |
Hypodivergent | 11 | 24 | 20 | 3 | 12 | 35 | ||||||||
| Normodivergent | 27 | 39 | 15 | 26 | 25 | 66 | |||||||||
| Hyperdivergent | 16 | 18 | 10 | 16 | 8 | 34 | |||||||||
| ANB angle |
Class I | 17 | 28 | 45 | 20 | 15 | 10 | ||||||||
| Class II | 14 | 31 | 45 | 3 | 26 | 16 | |||||||||
| Class III | 23 | 22 | 45 | 12 | 25 | 8 | |||||||||
| Sex | Male | 54 | 17 | 14 | 23 | 11 | 27 | 16 | |||||||
| Female | 81 | 28 | 31 | 22 | 24 | 39 | 18 | ||||||||
ANB, A point-nasion-B point; SN, sella-nasion plane; MP, mandibular plane.
Study design
Morphological and morphometric variables were blindly investigated in each patient group. Dolphin© (version 11.9.20; Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, Chatsworth, CA, USA) was used for cephalometric analysis. The ITK-SNAP software (version 3.8; Penn Image Computing and Science Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, the Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute at the University of Utah) was used for mandible segmentation by outlining the boundaries using semiautomated discrimination procedures to create a 3D standard tessellation language (STL) model of the area of interest. The Meshmixer software (version 3.5 Autodesk open-source) was used to determine the variable locations, shapes, and measurements, and all variables on both sides were evaluated separately. The Frankfort and orbital planes were parallel to the floor (Figure 1). Based on previous studies,18,22,23 the landmarks used for analysis are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. Condylion (Con) is the most superior point of the head of the mandibular condyle in the sagittal section; condylion lateral (ConL) is the most lateral point of the condyle process in the coronal section; condylion medial (ConM) is the most medial point of the condylion process in the coronal section; sigmoid point (Sig) is the deepest point of the sigmoid notch of the mandible, which represents the sigmoid plane; the line passing from the condylion to the mandibular notch plane along the long axis of the condylar process is the ConH line; and the condylar width (ConL-ConM) line connects the most lateral and medial points of the condyle. Figures 4 and 5 show the morphological shapes of the mandibular condyle in sagittal and coronal sections.
Figure 1.
Three-dimensional model orientation: the Frankfort horizontal (FH) and orbital planes parallel to the floor and the sigmoid plane in the box parallel to the Frankfort plane.
Figure 2.
Sagittal view showing the landmarks used for measurements of the mandibular condyle.
Con, the most superior point of the mandibular condyle; Cor, the most superior point of the coronoid process; ConH, a line extending from Con to the sigmoid plane, intersecting the long axis of the mandibular condyle; Sig, sigmoid notch.
Figure 3.
Coronal section of the left mandibular condyle width, which extends from the medial aspect of the condylion (ConM) to its lateral aspect (ConL).
Figure 4.
Mandibular condyle shapes. A, Bird beak. B, Diamond. C, Oval. D, Crooked finger.
Figure 5.
Condylar shapes from the coronal view. A, Angled. B, Convex. C, Concave. D, Round. E, Flattened.
Statistical analysis
The sample distributions are listed in Table 1. One investigator collected all measurements from the 135 participants. To evaluate intraexaminer reliability, the same examiner re-analyzed 20 randomly selected participants within a 3-week interval. The measures were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients. The results show good intraexaminer repeatability (Table 2). SPSS software (version 24.0 for Windows; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The Shapiro–Wilk normality test was performed on continuous variables with a normal distribution pattern. We used an independent sample t-test to compare the participants’ mean condylar height and width by sex (Table 3), while an ANOVA test was used to compare the mean values of the mandibular condyle height and width in various skeletal patterns and age groups (SN-MP, ANB) (Tables 4–6); Scheff's post hoc test was used when the ANOVA test was significant (Tables 4–6). The chi-square test was used to evaluate the prevalence of condyle shape in coronal and sagittal sections and determine whether there is a statistical association among different sexes, skeletal patterns, and age groups (Tables 7–10). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Table 2.
Intraexaminer repeatability test
| Variable | Intraclass correlation coefficients | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | ||
| LCCS | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.98 |
| LSCS | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.94 |
| LCCW | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.96 |
| LSCH | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.98 |
| RCCW | 0.87 | 0.82 | 0.92 |
| RSCH | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.99 |
| RCCS | 0.80 | 0.66 | 0.94 |
| RSCS | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
LCCS, left coronal condyle shape; LSCS, left sagittal condyle shape; LCCW, left coronal condyle width; LSCH, left sagittal condyle height; RCCW, right coronal condyle width; RSCH, right sagittal condyle height; RCCS, right coronal condyle shape; RSCS, right sagittal condyle shape.
Table 3.
Independent t-test among male and female
| Variable | Sex | Mean | SD | T-value | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCW | M | 19.40 | 2.42 | 1.73 | 0.08 |
| F | 18.64 | 2.55 | |||
| LCH | M | 19.08 | 3.38 | 0.67 | 0.50 |
| F | 18.69 | 3.23 | |||
| RCW | M | 19.14 | 2.44 | 0.79 | 0.42 |
| F | 18.80 | 2.39 | |||
| RCH | M | 18.97 | 3.01 | 0.27 | 0.78 |
| F | 18.82 | 3.14 |
SD, standard deviation; M, male; F, female; LCW, left condylar width; LCH, left condylar height; RCW, right condylar width; RCH, right condylar height.
Table 4.
ANOVA of the mandibular condylar height and width in different sagittal skeletal patterns
| Variables | ANB groups | Mean | SD | p-value† | Mean difference | p-value‡ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCW | Class I | 18.85 | 2.36 | 0.454 | Class I | Class II | 0.18 | 0.942 |
| Class II | 18.66 | 2.71 | Class III | –0.46 | 0.683 | |||
| Class III | 19.32 | 2.48 | Class II | Class I | –0.18 | 0.942 | ||
| Class III | –0.65 | 0.476 | ||||||
| LCH | Class I | 18.49 | 3.17 | 0.000*** | Class I | Class II | 0.84 | 0.438 |
| Class II | 17.65 | 3.07 | Class III | –1.92 | 0.015 | |||
| Class III | 20.41 | 3.05 | Class II | Class I | –0.84 | 0.438 | ||
| Class III | –2.76 | 0.000*** | ||||||
| RCW | Class I | 18.84 | 2.20 | 0.510 | Class I | Class II | 0.14 | 0.963 |
| Class II | 18.70 | 2.64 | Class III | –0.42 | 0.703 | |||
| Class III | 19.27 | 2.38 | Class II | Class I | –0.14 | 0.963 | ||
| Class III | –0.56 | 0.538 | ||||||
| RCH | ClassI | 18.74 | 2.72 | 0.000*** | Class I | Class II | 1.15 | 0.168 |
| Class II | 17.58 | 3.11 | Class III | –1.58 | 0.037 | |||
| Class III | 20.32 | 2.81 | Class II | Class I | –1.15 | 0.168 | ||
| Class III | –2.74 | 0.000*** | ||||||
ANOVA, analysis of variance; ANB, A point-nasion-B point; SD, standard deviation; LCW, left condylar width; LCH, left condylar height; RCW, right condylar width; RCH, right condylar height.
***p < 0.001.
†ANOVA test was performed.
‡Scheff's post hoc test was performed.
Table 5.
ANOVA of the mandibular condylar height and width in different vertical skeletal patterns
| Variables | SN-MP groups | Mean | SD | p-value† | Mean difference | p-value ‡ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCW | Hypodivergent | 19.25 | 2.03 | 0.553 | Hypodivergent | Normodivergent | 0.28 | 0.861 |
| Normodivergent | 18.96 | 2.51 | Hyperdivergent | 0.66 | 0.555 | |||
| Hyperdivergent | 18.59 | 2.98 | Normodivergent | Hypodivergent | –0.28 | 0.861 | ||
| Hyperdivergent | 0.37 | 0.784 | ||||||
| LCH | Hypodivergent | 18.87 | 3.23 | 0.986 | Hypodivergent | Normodivergent | 0.06 | 0.995 |
| Normodivergent | 18.80 | 3.29 | Hyperdivergent | –0.04 | 0.998 | |||
| Hyperdivergent | 18.92 | 3.44 | Normodivergent | Hypodivergent | –0.06 | 0.995 | ||
| Hyperdivergent | –0.11 | 0.987 | ||||||
| RCW | Hypodivergent | 19.31 | 2.01 | 0.276 | Hypodivergent | Normodivergent | 0.30 | 0.837 |
| Normodivergent | 19.01 | 2.45 | Hyperdivergent | 0.91 | 0.295 | |||
| Hyperdivergent | 18.40 | 2.67 | Normodivergent | Hypodivergent | –0.30 | 0.837 | ||
| Hyperdivergent | 0.60 | 0.489 | ||||||
| RCH | Hypodivergent | 18.87 | 2.88 | 0.999 | Hypodivergent | Normodivergent | –0.01 | 1.000 |
| Normodivergent | 18.89 | 2.90 | Hyperdivergent | –0.01 | 1.000 | |||
| Hyperdivergent | 18.88 | 3.65 | Normodivergent | Hypodivergent | 0.01 | 1.000 | ||
| Hyperdivergent | 0.00 | 1.000 | ||||||
ANOVA, analysis of variance; SN, sella-nasion plane; MP, mandibular plane; SD, standard deviation; LCW, left condylar width; LCH, left condylar height; RCW, right condylar width; RCH, right condylar height.
†ANOVA test was performed.
‡Scheff's post hoc test was performed.
Table 6.
ANOVA of the mandibular condyle height and width in different age groups
| Variables | SN-MP groups | Mean | SD | p-value† | Mean difference | p-value‡ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCW | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 18.31 | 2.28 | 0.233 | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | –0.88 | 0.238 |
| 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | 19.2 | 2.38 | Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | –0.72 | 0.550 | |||
| Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | 19.04 | 3.13 | 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 0.88 | 0.238 | ||
| Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | 0.15 | 0.963 | ||||||
| LCH | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 18.57 | 3 | 0.844 | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | –0.39 | 0.844 |
| 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | 18.97 | 3.21 | Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | –0.3 | 0.942 | |||
| Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | 18.87 | 3.95 | 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 0.39 | 0.844 | ||
| Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | 0.09 | 0.991 | ||||||
| RCW | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 18.14 | 2.07 | 0.084 | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | –1.06 | 0.099 |
| 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | 19.21 | 2.32 | Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | –1.04 | 0.257 | |||
| Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | 19.18 | 2.9 | 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 1.06 | 0.099 | ||
| Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | 0.02 | 0.990 | ||||||
| RCH | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 18.44 | 3.04 | 0.501 | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | –0.46 | 0.767 |
| 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | 18.91 | 2.96 | Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | –0.95 | 0.504 | |||
| Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | 19.4 | 3.48 | 21 yr ≤ Group 2 < 30 yr | Group 1 ≤ 20 yr | 0.46 | 0.767 | ||
| Group 3 ≥ 30 yr | –0.49 | 0.789 | ||||||
ANOVA, analysis of variance; SN, sella-nasion plane; MP, mandibular plane; SD, standard deviation; LCW, left condylar width; LCH, left condylar height; RCW, right condylar width; RCH, right condylar height.
†ANOVA test was performed.
‡Scheff's post hoc test was performed.
Table 7.
Chi-square test; prevalence of mandibular condyle shapes by sex
| Variables | Shape | Sex | Total (%) | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Left | Right | ||||||
| Left (%) | Right (%) | Left (%) | Right (%) | ||||||
| Coronal condyle shape | Angled | 22.2 | 22.2 | 24.7 | 25.9 | 24.0 | 0.336 | 0.283 | |
| Concave | 5.6 | 5.6 | 7.4 | 7.4 | 6.6 | ||||
| Convex | 44.4 | 44.4 | 29.6 | 28.4 | 35.1 | ||||
| Flattened | 7.4 | 7.4 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 5.9 | ||||
| Round | 20.4 | 20.4 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 28.1 | ||||
| Sagittal condyle shape | Bird beak | 20.4 | 20.4 | 13.6 | 22.2 | 18.9 | 0.701 | 0.987 | |
| Crooked finger | 7.4 | 7.4 | 9.9 | 7.4 | 8.1 | ||||
| Diamond | 20.4 | 18.5 | 18.5 | 19.8 | 19.3 | ||||
| Oval | 51.9 | 53.7 | 58.0 | 50.6 | 53.7 | ||||
Table 8.
Chi-square test; prevalence of mandibular condyle shapes by the sagittal skeletal pattern
| Variable | Shapes | Class I | Class II | Class III | Total (%) | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left (%) | Right (%) | Left (%) | Right (%) | Left (%) | Right (%) | Left | Right | |||||
| Coronal condyle shape | Angled | 15.6 | 15.6 | 26.7 | 26.7 | 28.9 | 31.1 | 24.0 | 0.487 | 0.450 | ||
| Concave | 11.1 | 11.1 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 6.6 | |||||
| Convex | 33.3 | 33.3 | 35.6 | 35.6 | 37.8 | 35.6 | 35.1 | |||||
| Flattened | 8.9 | 8.9 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 5.9 | |||||
| Round | 31.1 | 31.1 | 24.4 | 24.4 | 28.9 | 28.9 | 28.1 | |||||
| Sagittal condyle shape | Bird beak | 15.6 | 20.0 | 22.2 | 33.3 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 18.9 | 0.726 | 0.118 | ||
| Crooked finger | 8.9 | 6.7 | 8.9 | 6.7 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 8.1 | |||||
| Diamond | 24.4 | 24.4 | 17.8 | 20.0 | 13.3 | 15.6 | 19.3 | |||||
| Oval | 51.1 | 48.9 | 51.1 | 40.0 | 66.7 | 64.4 | 53.7 | |||||
Table 9.
Chi-square test; prevalence of mandibular condyle shapes by the vertical skeletal pattern
| Variable | Shapes | Hypodivergent | Normodivergent | Hyperdivergent | Total (%) | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left (%) | Right (%) | Left (%) | Right (%) | Left (%) | Right (%) | Left | Right | |||||
| Coronal condyle shape | Angled | 28.6 | 28.6 | 27.3 | 28.8 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 24.0 | 0.196 | 0.181 | ||
| Concave | 8.6 | 8.6 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 6.6 | |||||
| Convex | 31.4 | 31.4 | 36.4 | 34.8 | 38.2 | 38.2 | 35.1 | |||||
| Flattened | 5.7 | 5.7 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 14.7 | 14.7 | 5.9 | |||||
| Round | 25.7 | 25.7 | 27.3 | 27.3 | 32.4 | 32.4 | 28.1 | |||||
| Sagittal condyle shape | Bird beak | 11.4 | 17.1 | 13.6 | 21.2 | 26.5 | 26.5 | 18.9 | 0.516 | 0.862 | ||
| Crooked finger | 11.4 | 8.6 | 10.6 | 9.1 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 8.1 | |||||
| Diamond | 17.1 | 17.1 | 19.7 | 19.7 | 20.6 | 20.6 | 19.3 | |||||
| Oval | 60.0 | 57.1 | 56.1 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 53.7 | |||||
Table 10.
Chi-square test; prevalence of the mandibular condyle shapes by age
| Variable | Shapes | Age ≤ 20 yr | 21 yr ≤ Age < 30 yr | Age ≥ 30 yr | Total (%) | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left (%) | Right (%) | Left (%) | Right (%) | Left (%) | Right (%) | Left | Right | |||||
| Coronal condyle shape | Angled | 26.5 | 26.5 | 23.7 | 25 | 20 | 20 | 24.0 | 0.253 | 0.255 | ||
| Concave | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 12 | 12 | 6.6 | |||||
| Convex | 35.3 | 35.3 | 36.8 | 35.5 | 32 | 32 | 35.1 | |||||
| Flattened | 8.8 | 8.8 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.9 | |||||
| Round | 29.4 | 29.4 | 25 | 25 | 36 | 36 | 28.1 | |||||
| Sagittal condyle shape | Bird beak | 17.6 | 23.5 | 11.8 | 15.8 | 28 | 36 | 18.9 | 0.394 | 0.363 | ||
| Crooked finger | 2.9 | 2.9 | 11.8 | 9.2 | 8 | 8 | 8.1 | |||||
| Diamond | 17.6 | 17.6 | 19.7 | 19.7 | 20 | 20 | 19.3 | |||||
| Oval | 61.8 | 55.9 | 56.6 | 55.3 | 44 | 36 | 53.7 | |||||
RESULTS
The mean values of the mandibular condyle height and width among males were more prominent than those among females; there was a significant difference in condylar height (p < 0.05) in different (ANB) groups (Table 4), and the mean condylar height values in Class III malocclusion were more prominent than those in Class I and II malocclusions (Table 4). There were no differences between the mean condylar height and width values in the SN-MP groups (Table 5). Table 6 presents the mean condylar height and width values among different age groups, with no significant differences among the age groups. The chi-square test results based on sex (Table 7), skeletal pattern (Tables 8 and 9), and age (Table 10) showed that the most prevalent shape of the condyle in the coronal view was convex (35.1%); the convex shape was also the most prevalent among males (44.4%) and in the Class I (33.3%), Class II (35.6%), Class III (36.7%), hypodivergent (31.4%), normodivergent (35.6%), and hyperdivergent (38.2%) groups. The most prevalent condylar shape among females was round (33.3%). In the sagittal view, the prevalence of the oval condyle shape was 53.7% overall, 52.7% among males, 54.3% among females, 50% in the Class I, 45.5% in the Class II, 65% in the Class III, 58.5% in the hypodivergent, 53% in the normodivergent, and 50% in the hyperdivergent groups. Chi-square test results showed no statistically significant associations of the mandibular condyle shapes in different sections with sex or skeletal pattern (p > 0.05).
DISCUSSION
Our study investigated the morphology and morphometrics of the mandibular condyle. Several previous anthropological studies18,20,22,23,25 have investigated the morphological shapes of the mandibular condyle based on sex; however, no study has attempted to identify the morphological variations in the condyle between different sagittal and vertical skeletal malocclusions. Lopez et al.25 and Ishwarkumar et al.20 found that the mandibular condyle height and width were more prominent in males than in females. Previous studies16,26 have reported a greater mandibular condyle volume among skeletal Class III malocclusion patients. Noh et al.17 observed that the condylar height and width were greater in Class III malocclusion than in Class II malocclusion, and the condylar width of hypodivergent patients was greater than that of hyperdivergent patients. In line with previous studies, the current research indicates that the condylar height of patients with Class III malocclusion is greater than that of patients with Class I and II malocclusion. We found that the condylar width was more prominent in Class III malocclusion than in Class I and II malocclusions and greater in the hypodivergent group than in the normodivergent and hyperdivergent groups. These findings may indicate that there is excessive vertical development of the mandibular ramus in patients with Class III malocclusion. It is likely that condylar height plays an essential role during the development of Class III malocclusion but has no impact on vertical skeletal malocclusions. In the current study, patients ≤ 20 years had a lower condylar height than those > 20 years. Although this difference was not statistically significant, it might be related to late mandibular condyle growth. Wolff’s law27 states that bone morphology and internal architecture depend on the load applied to the bone. Previous studies have found that hypodivergent patients have higher maximum bite forces.28,29 In contrast, hyperdivergent patients have weaker bite forces during clenching and chewing because of decreased muscle tonicity;30 thus, it may affect the mandibular condyle shape viewed in sagittal or coronal sections because of different loads applied by the masticatory muscles. Our findings contradicted the hypothesis as no statistical association was found between the mandibular condyle shape and different groups of sex, age, and sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns. Tassoker et al.18 and Yale et al.31 observed the that the condylar shape was predominantly convex in the coronal view. Similarly, we found that the most prominent shape of the mandibular condyle is convex and has no clinical association with sex, age, or sagittal and vertical skeletal malocclusions. Previous anthropological studies18,21,23,32-34 reported that the round/oval shape of the mandibular condyle is the most common in sex from the sagittal view. Vahanwala et al.35 and Anisuzzaman et al.36 reported that most common condylar shape was oval (> 60%) and the least common was the crooked-finger shape (2%). Our study found that the most common condylar shape from the sagittal view was oval shape (53.7%) and the least common was the crooked finger shape (8.1%). The morphological shape of the condyle showed no statistical association with sex, age, and sagittal and vertical skeletal malocclusions. However, it might be related to TMJ spaces where the crooked finger-shaped condyle had the smallest size in comparison with that of condyles with other shapes. The differences in the measurements might be attributed to racial diversity, sample size, and study design. Our findings suggest no association between mandibular condyle shape variations and sex, age, and sagittal and vertical skeletal malocclusion. At the same time, there was a statistically significant relationship between the mandibular condyle height and skeletal sagittal malocclusion, suggesting that the mandibular condyle growth potential in Class III malocclusion was higher than that in Class I and II malocclusion patients.
A potential limitation of our study is an insufficient age group distribution, which might have affected the accuracy of our results. Future studies on the morphological shapes of the mandibular condyle and their relation to the TMJ and dysfunctions are necessary.
CONCLUSIONS
This study morphologically and morphometrically evaluated the relationship between mandibular condyles and various skeletal malocclusion patterns in adults, using CBCT.
There were no statistical associations between the morphological shapes of the mandibular condyle and sex and sagittal and vertical skeletal malocclusions.
The mandibular condyle height was greater in Class III malocclusion than in Class I and II malocclusions.
The mandibular condyle width of males was greater than that of females.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
None.
Footnotes
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization: LW, WBZ, AMM, AAN, JY. Data curation: AMM, JY, CC, AAN. Formal analysis: LW, WBZ, AMM, AAN, JY. Funding acquisition: LW, WBZ. Methodology: LW, WBZ, AMM. Project administration: LW, WBZ. Visualization: LW, WBZ. Writing–original draft: AMM. Writing–review & editing: LW, WBZ, JY, AAN, CC.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
FUNDING
This research was supported by the National Natural Foundation of China (grant number 81870797).
REFERENCES
- 1.Jablonski S. Illustrated dictionary of dentistry. W.B Saunders Co.; Philadelphia: 1982. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mohl N, Zarb G, Carlsson G, Rugh J. Textbook of occlusion. Quintessence Publishing Co.; Chicago: 1988. pp. 139–40. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kandasamy S, Greene CS, Rinchuse DJ, Stockstill JW. TMD and orthodontics: a clinical guide for the orthodontist. Springer; Cham: 2015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Snell RS. Clinical anatomy for medical students. Little Brown & Co.; Boston: 1995. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Williams PL BL, Berry MM, Collins P, Dyson M, Dussek JE, et al. Skeletal system-individual cranial bones. In: Williams PL BL, Berry MM, Collins P, Dyson M, Dussek JE, et al., editors. Gray's anatomy: The anatomical basis of medicine and surgery. 38th ed. Churchill Livingstone; Great Britain: 1995. p. 577. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ardakani FE, Niafar N. Evaluation of changes in the mandibular angular cortex using panoramic images. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2004;5:1–15. doi: 10.5005/jcdp-5-3-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Solberg WK, Bibb CA, Nordström BB, Hansson TL. Malocclusion associated with temporomandibular joint changes in young adults at autopsy. Am J Orthod. 1986;89:326–30. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(86)90055-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gray H, Standring S. Gray's anatomy: the anatomical basis of clinical practice. Churchill Livingstone; Edinburgh: 2005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Alomar X, Medrano J, Cabratosa J, Clavero JA, Lorente M, Serra I, et al. Anatomy of the temporomandibular joint. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2007;28:170–83. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2007.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hegde S, Praveen BN, Shetty SR. Morphological and radiological variations of mandibular condyles in health and diseases: a systematic review. Dentistry. 2013;3:154. doi: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000154. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Krisjane Z, Urtane I, Krumina G, Bieza A, Zepa K, Rogovska I. Condylar and mandibular morphological criteria in the 2D and 3D MSCT imaging for patients with Class II division 1 subdivision malocclusion. Stomatologija. 2007;9:67–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J. Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0121682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121682.d2bf1af7723d46099cc547a255c99578 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Chae JM, Park JH, Tai K, Mizutani K, Uzuka S, Miyashita W, et al. Evaluation of condyle-fossa relationships in adolescents with various skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2020;90:224–32. doi: 10.2319/052919-369.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Song J, Cheng M, Qian Y, Chu F. Cone-beam CT evaluation of temporomandibular joint in permanent dentition according to Angle's classification. Oral Radiol. 2020;36:261–6. doi: 10.1007/s11282-019-00403-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zhang Y, Xu X, Liu Z. Comparison of morphologic parameters of temporomandibular joint for asymptomatic subjects using the two-dimensional and three-dimensional measuring methods. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:5680708. doi: 10.1155/2017/5680708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Krisjane Z, Urtane I, Krumina G, Zepa K. Three-dimensional evaluation of TMJ parameters in Class II and Class III patients. Stomatologija. 2009;11:32–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.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 study. Korean J Orthod. 2021;51:126–34. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tassoker M, Kabakci ADA, Akin D, Sener S. Evaluation of mandibular notch, coronoid process, and mandibular condyle configurations with cone beam computed tomography. Biomed Res. 2017;28:8327–35. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Isaac B, Holla SJ. Variations in the shape of the coronoid process in the adult human mandible. J Anat Soc India. 2001;50:137–9. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ishwarkumar S, Pillay P, De-Gama B, Satyapal K. Osteometric and radiological study of the mandibular notch. Int J Morphol. 2019;37:491–7. doi: 10.4067/S0717-95022019000200491. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Oliveira-Santos C, Bernardo RT, Capelozza A. Mandibular condyle morphology on panoramic radiographs of asymptomatic temporomandibular joints. Int J Dent. 2009;8 [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sahithi D, Reddy S, Teja DD, Koneru J, Praveen KNS, Sruthi R. Reveal the concealed - morphological variations of the coronoid process, condyle and sigmoid notch in personal identification. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2016;6:108–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejfs.2015.11.003.531bda3ca9b24f43b360e5ae8a40339d [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Nagaraj T, Nigam H, Santosh H, Gogula S, Sumana C, Sahu P. Morphological variations of the coronoid process, condyle and sigmoid notch as an adjunct in personal identification. J Med Radiol Pathol Surg. 2017;4:1–5. doi: 10.15713/ins.jmrps.86. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hwang HS, Hwang CH, Lee KH, Kang BC. Maxillofacial 3-dimensional image analysis for the diagnosis of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:779–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lopez TT, Michel-Crosato E, Benedicto EN, Paiva LA, Silva DC, Biazevic MG. Accuracy of mandibular measurements of sexual dimorphism using stabilizer equipment. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31:e1. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Saccucci M, D'Attilio M, Rodolfino D, Festa F, Polimeni A, Tecco S. Condylar volume and condylar area in class I, class II and class III young adult subjects. Head Face Med. 2012;8:34. doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-8-34.3df2f567c37b40cd83ffc473945335b2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Wolff J. The law of bone remodelling. Springer Science & Business Media; Berlin: 2012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Charalampidou M, Kjellberg H, Georgiakaki I, Kiliaridis S. Masseter muscle thickness and mechanical advantage in relation to vertical craniofacial morphology in children. Acta Odontol Scand. 2008;66:23–30. doi: 10.1080/00016350701884604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Proffit WR, Fields HW, Nixon WL. Occlusal forces in normal- and long-face adults. J Dent Res. 1983;62:566–70. doi: 10.1177/00220345830620051201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gomes SGF. [Effect of facial vertical pattern on mastication and its parameters] [PhD dissertation] UNICAMP Universidade Estadual de Campinas; Piracicaba: 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Yale SH, Allison BD, Hauptfuehrer JD. An epidemiological assessment of mandibular condyle morphology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1966;21:169–77. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(66)90238-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Ribeiro EC, Sanches ML, Alonso LG, Smith RL. Shape and symmetry of human condyle and mandibular fossa. Int J Odontostomat. 2015;9:65–72. doi: 10.4067/S0718-381X2015000100010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Chaudhary S, Srivastava D, Jaetli V, Tirth A. Evaluation of condylar morphology using panoramic radiography in normal adult population. Int J Sci Stud. 2015;2:164–8. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Shubhasini AR, Praveen BN, Shubha G, Keerthi G, Darshana SN. Study of three dimensional morphology of mandibular condyle using cone beam computed tomography. MJDS. 2016;1:7–12. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Vahanwala S, Pagare S, Gavand K, Roy C. Evaluation of condylar morphology using panoramic radiography. J Adv Clin Res Insights. 2016;3:5–8. doi: 10.15713/ins.jcri.94. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Anisuzzaman MM, Khan SR, Khan MTI, Abdullah MK, Afrin A. Evaluation of mandibular condylar morphology by orthopantomogram in Bangladeshi population. Update Dent Coll J. 2019;9:29–31. doi: 10.3329/updcj.v9i1.41203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]