Skip to main content
Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences logoLink to Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences
. 2023 Apr 28;48(4):575–580. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2023.220270

不同发育时期单侧完全性唇腭裂患者颞下颌关节对称性的差异

Differences of temporomandibular joint symmetry in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate at different developmental stages

JIA Wanping 1,2,2, YANG Zhaoxia 2, SU Xinying 1, SHAO Mengying 1, LEI Yonghua 1,
Editor: 傅 希文
PMCID: PMC10930256  PMID: 37385620

Abstract

Objective

Currently, the research results regarding the bilateral temporomandibular joint symmetry in patients at different ages with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate (UCLP) are still controversial. In this study, the position of condyle in the articular fossa and morphology of condyle in UCLP patients at different developmental stages was measured and analyzed to explore the asymmetry difference, which can provide a new theoretical basis for the sequential therapy.

Methods

A total of 90 patients with UCLP were divided into a mixed dentition group (31 cases), a young permanent dentition group (31 cases) and an old permanent dentition group (28 cases) according to age and dentition development. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were imported into Invivo5 software for 3D reconstruction, and the joint space, anteroposterior diameter, medio-lateral diameter, and height of condylar were measured, and its asymmetry index was calculated.

Results

The asymmetry index of condylar height and anteroposterior diameter among the 3 groups, from small to large, was the mixed dentition group<the young permanent dentition group<the old permanent dentition group (both P<0.05). There was no significant difference in condylar anteroposterior diameter and asymmetry index between the mixed dentition group and the young permanent dentition group (both P>0.05), all of them were lower than those in the old permanent dentition group (both P<0.05). Compared with the normal side, the height of fracture condyle was smaller among the 3 groups (all P<0.05), and the anterior joint space was smaller (P<0.05) and the posterior joint space was larger (P<0.05) in the mixed dentition group.

Conclusion

In patients with UCLP, the asymmetry of condylar morphology increases with age, but the condylar position tends to normal. These results suggest that early treatment has important clinical significance for the morphologic development of temporomandibular joint in UCLP patients.

Keywords: different developmental stages, cleft lip and palate, temporomandibular joint, symmetry


单侧完全性唇腭裂(unilateral complete cleft lip and palate,UCLP)是一类发生在口腔颌面部的先天性畸形,在唇腭裂患者中所占比例最高[1]。唇腭裂修补术后常表现为面中份凹陷、咬合异常、颜面部不对称等。研究[2]发现约有14%的UCLP患者表现有颞下颌关节紊乱症状,显著高于正常人群。颞下颌关节是参与咬合功能和维持口颌系统平衡的重要结构,当咬合功能条件发生变化,髁突的生长及其相对于关节窝的位置也会随之受到影响。Paknahad等[3]研究发现成年UCLP患者裂隙侧髁突高度显著小于正常侧,而Celikoglu等[4]发现青少年UCLP患者健患侧髁突高度无显著差异,这可能与研究对象的年龄选择差异有关。邢菲菲等[5]发现UCLP患者双侧髁突存在明显的不对称,并猜测不对称程度可能与年龄有关,但缺少相关纵向研究予以论证。本实验通过分析不同发育时期UCLP患者髁突在关节窝中的位置和髁突形态,探讨其不对称性差异,为UCLP患者序列治疗提供新的理论依据。

1. 对象与方法

1.1. 对象与分组

本研究病例来自2016年至2021年在中南大学湘雅医院正畸科就诊的90例UCLP患者,根据年龄及牙列的发育阶段[6]分为3组:替牙列组(A组),共31例,男13例,女18例,年龄8.00-12.00(9.97±1.26)岁;年轻恒牙列组(B组),共31例,男17例,女14例,年龄12.00~15.00(13.16±1.10)岁;年长恒牙列组(C组),共28例,男14例,女14例,年龄16.00~31.00(19.14±3.95)岁。所选病例均符合以下标准:1)单侧完全性唇腭裂,单侧上唇全部、腭、牙槽突裂开;2)两岁前完成唇腭裂修补术;3)未接受正畸治疗及牙槽突裂修复植骨术;4)无明显颞下颌关节紊乱症状;5)无其他系统性发育性疾病史。

1.2. 测量方法

将锥形束CT(cone beam computed tomography,CBCT)影像导入Invivo 5软件进行三维分析,所有的测量均由同一医生完成,间隔2周重复测量3次,测量结果取平均值。

1.2.1. 关节间隙的测量

滚动图像选取髁突最大横截面,过髁突长轴做基准面,得到关节窝-髁突矢状切面图像。应用Kamelchuk等[7]的方法对关节间隙进行测量(图1)。过关节窝顶点做水平切线(A线),过关节窝顶点做垂线(B线),过关节窝顶点做髁突前、后斜面的切线(C线、D线)。关节上间隙(superior space,Ss)为关节窝顶点与B线和髁突相交点之间的距离;关节前间隙(anterior space,Sa)为过切点做C线垂线,关节结节后斜面交点与C线之间的距离;关节后间隙(posterior space,Sp)为过切点做D线垂线,关节结节前斜面和垂线交点与 D线之间的距离。

图1.

图1

关节间隙测量示意图

Figure 1 Schematic diagram of measurement of joint space

Ss: Superior space; Sa: Anterior space; Sp: Posterior space.

1.2.2. 髁突高度、前后径和内外径的测量

调整影像的锐化程度和对比度,得到清晰完整的下颌骨影像,使用软件中的三维图像裁剪工具,去掉除下颌骨以外的骨性影像,在三维影像上旋转观察,并定点测量(图2)。参照Schlueter等[8]的测量方法,分别从前后面、上面、侧面上观察,标注髁突最上点(superior condylar point,CdS)、髁突最前点(anterior condylar point,CdA)、髁突最后点(posterior condylar point,CdP)、髁突最内点(medial condylar point,CdM)和髁突最外点(lateral condylar point,CdL)。髁突内外径为CdM到CdL的距离;髁突前后径为CdA到CdP的距离;髁突高度为CdS到CdM和CdL连线的垂直距离。

图2.

图2

髁突形态测量示意图

Figure 2 Schematic diagram of measurement of condyle morphology

A: Condylar internal and external diameters; B: Anteroposterior diameter of condyle; C: Condylar height. CdM: Medial condylar point; CdL: Lateral condylar point; CdP: Posterior condylar point; CdA: Anterior condylar point; CdS: Superior condylar point.

1.3. 不对称性指数计算

不对称性指数(asymmetry index,AI)采用Habets等[9]的计算公式:AI=|(正常侧-裂隙侧)/(正常侧+裂隙侧)|×100%,以此分别计算各组健患侧髁突高度、髁突内外径、髁突前后径的AI。

1.4. 统计学处理

采用SPSS 26.0统计学软件进行数据分析,采用配对样本t检验比较组内双侧测量数据,采用单因素方差分析比较组间不对称性指数,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2. 结 果

2.1. 髁突在关节窝中的位置

裂隙侧与正常侧关节间隙的配对样本t检验见表1,结果显示替牙列组健患侧关节前、后间隙比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05),关节前间隙正常侧>裂隙侧(P<0.05),关节后间隙正常侧<裂隙侧(P<0.05),关节上间隙差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);年轻恒牙列组、年长恒牙列组健患侧关节上、前、后间隙差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。

表1.

各组裂隙侧和正常侧关节间隙比较( x¯ ±s)

Table 1 Comparison of joint spaces between cleft side and normal side ( x¯ ±s)

组别 n 测量项目 裂隙侧/mm 正常侧/mm t P
替牙列组 31 Ss 3.37±0.60 3.28±0.57 0.535 0.597
Sa 2.46±0.48 3.07±0.46 -4.251 <0.001
Sp 3.07±0.75 2.51±0.63 2.564 0.016
年轻恒牙列组 31 Ss 3.59±0.78 3.36±0.76 1.502 0.144
Sa 2.62±0.47 2.80±0.56 -4.247 0.187
Sp 2.58±0.60 2.44±0.84 0.699 0.490
年长恒牙列组 28 Ss 3.12±0.96 3.09±0.93 -0.187 0.853
Sa 2.49±0.69 2.53±0.60 -0.382 0.705
Sp 2.00±0.50 2.18±0.60 -1.670 0.106

Ss:关节上间隙;Sa:关节前间隙;Sp:关节后间隙。

2.2. 髁突形态

裂隙侧与正常侧髁突形态的配对样本t检验见表2,各组健患侧髁突高度比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05),裂隙侧<正常侧(P<0.05),健患侧髁突内外径、前后径比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。

表2.

各组裂隙侧和正常侧髁突形态比较( x¯ ±s)

Table 2 Comparison of condylar morphology between cleft side and normal side ( x¯ ±s)

组别 n 测量项目 裂隙侧/mm 正常侧/mm t P
替牙列组 31 高度 7.32±0.48 7.56±0.52 -6.211 <0.001
前后径 8.01±0.96 7.96±1.03 0.570 0.575
内外径 16.01±1.79 15.98±1.90 0.201 0.842
年轻恒牙列期组 31 高度 7.68±0.92 7.92±0.57 -2.248 0.032
前后径 9.07±1.64 9.17±1.28 -0.438 0.665
内外径 17.27±1.90 17.31±1.70 -0.183 0.856
年长恒牙列组 28 高度 10.60±1.53 11.64±1.57 -5.671 <0.001
前后径 10.60±2.04 10.64±1.97 -0.087 0.931
内外径 17.34±2.53 17.31±1.73 0.069 0.946

2.3. AI

各组AI单因素方差分析见表3,各组髁突高度、内外径、前后径的AI比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。其中髁突高度、前后径AI从小到大依次为替牙列组<年轻恒牙列组<年长恒牙列组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);替牙列组与年轻恒牙列组髁突内外径AI差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),且均小于年长恒牙列组(均P<0.05)。

表3.

各组髁突形态AI( x¯ ±s)

Table 3 Condylar AI in each group ( x¯ ±s)

组别 n 高度AI/% 前后径AI/% 内外径AI/%
P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
替牙列组 31 1.84±1.11 2.66±1.97 2.21±1.52
年轻恒牙列组 31 3.76±1.60* 5.27±3.97* 2.90±1.95
年长恒牙列组 28 5.69±3.55*† 10.41±5.02*† 4.91±3.53*†

与替牙列组比较,*P<0.05;与年轻恒牙列组比较,†P<0.05。AI:不对称指数。

3. 讨 论

髁突是颞下颌关节重要的组成部分,所受机械压力可调控其表面纤维软骨的成骨,从而使关节产生适应性生长。关节区的功能负重是刺激下颌骨垂直向发育和颞下颌关节改建的重要因素。唇腭裂修复术后,唇部的异常肌力、腭部的瘢痕挛缩及先天的发育缺陷限制了上颌骨的正常发育[10],UCLP患者常表现为单侧后牙反牙合、裂隙侧咀嚼肌肌力下降[11]。不对称的咬合力和咀嚼肌肌力可能导致髁突软骨承受的压力不同,进而发生双侧髁突的高度不同。Habets等[9]认为下颌垂直向AI大于3%时,垂直向有显著不对称。本研究发现各组的裂隙侧髁突高度明显小于正常侧,髁突高度AI随年龄增长而增加。其中年轻恒牙列组和年长恒牙列组髁突高度AI分别为(3.76±1.60)%、(5.69±3.55)%,均大于3.00%,提示年轻恒牙列期与年长恒牙列期UCLP患者双侧髁突高度均有明显的不对称,与Paknahad等[3]的研究结果相符。Sullivan等[12]研究发现下颌骨垂直向生长趋势为Ⅰ型生长类型,存在婴儿期和青春期2个生长发育高峰。替牙列组年龄为8~12岁,垂直向未进入第2个高峰期,髁突高度尚未见明显的不对称。因此,UCLP患者在出现髁突高度不对称时应早期干预治疗,若不及时阻断,随着年龄增加可能进一步导致关节乃至颌骨的骨性不对称,加重畸形。同时要纠正偏侧咀嚼习惯,增强裂隙侧咀嚼肌肌功能训练,以平衡健患侧关节区的功能负载,不仅可以刺激双侧髁突对称生长,还能改善软组织的不对称。

颞下颌关节是颌面部唯一的可动关节,双侧髁突通过下颌骨连为一体,左右关节互为联动,在同样的咬合环境下,双侧关节基本发育对称。Almaqrami等[13]通过分析测量正常成人髁突及颞骨关节面的形态和髁突相对于关节窝中的位置,发现正常成人双侧颞下颌关节基本对称。Rivero-Millán等[14]发现无颞下颌关节病的安氏Ⅰ类人群髁突位置居中,关节前后间隙基本一致。本研究结果显示替牙列组正常侧Sa显著大于裂隙侧,正常侧Sp显著小于裂隙侧,提示替牙列期裂隙侧髁突在关节窝中的位置较对侧更靠前,下颌骨发生了功能性移位。年轻恒牙列组和年长恒牙列组健患侧关节间隙对比无显著差异,提示年轻恒牙列期、年长恒牙列期髁突位置基本正常。此外,本研究发现各组髁突内外径和前后径AI随年龄增加逐渐增大。Solberg等[15]通过解剖研究咬合异常的颞下颌关节标本发现年龄增长与髁突形态的异常改建有相关关系,支持本实验的结果。在长期异常的咬合关系下,UCLP患者髁突和关节窝可能发生了不对称的适应性改建,促使髁突位置变得相对正常。Resi等[16]发现不对称的髁突形态是引起颞下颌关节紊乱病重要的因素,随着年龄增长,UCLP患者髁突形态的不对称程度逐渐显著,颞下颌关节紊乱发生的潜在风险也随之增加。这些结果均提示UCLP患者应及早行正畸治疗,纠正咬合关系,减少可能发生的关节疾病或颜面部畸形。

综上所述,UCLP患者替牙期的颞下颌关节不对称多为髁突的功能性移位引起,暂未出现严重的形态异常,应在其生长发育高峰期或高峰前期通过矫形手段匹配上下牙弓,纠正严重错位牙及咬合干扰,采用功能性矫治器、牙合板等方法诱导下颌骨回到正常位置,阻断关节紊乱和畸形的进一步发生。随着年龄增长,生长发育高峰后的UCLP患者髁突在关节窝中的位置逐渐趋于正常而形态异常加重,此时期进行正畸治疗时,应加强对关节的监控,谨慎使用颌间牵引,减少颌位的改变,以防诱发或加重颞下颌关节症状。必要时通过正颌手术进一步治疗。

基金资助

中南大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金(2021zzts1042)。

This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University, China (2021zzts1042).

利益冲突声明

作者声称无任何利益冲突。

作者贡献

贾婉萍 论文设计、撰写与修改,数据分析;杨昭霞、邵梦莹 数据采集;苏昕莹 数据统计分析;雷勇华 论文设计、指导及修改。所有作者阅读并同意最终的文本。

原文网址

http://xbyxb.csu.edu.cn/xbwk/fileup/PDF/202304575.pdf

参考文献

  • 1. Chung JH, Yim S, Cho IS, et al. Distribution, side involvement, phenotype and associated anomalies of Korean patients with craniofacial clefts from single university hospitalbased data obtained during 1998—2018[J]. Korean J Orthod, 2020, 50(6): 383-390. 10.4041/kjod.2020.50.6.383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Marcusson A, List T, Paulin G, et al. Temporomandibular disorders in adults with repaired cleft lip and palate: a comparison with controls[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2001, 23(2): 193-204. 10.1093/ejo/23.2.193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Paknahad M, Shahidi S, Bahrampour E, et al. Cone beam computed tomographic evaluation of mandibular asymmetry in patients with cleft lip and palate[J]. Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 2018, 55(7): 919-924. 10.1597/15-280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Celikoglu M, Halicioglu K, Buyuk SK, et al. Condylar and ramal vertical asymmetry in adolescent patients with cleft lip and palate evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2013, 144(5): 691-697. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. 邢菲菲, 张锡忠, 魏志强. 单侧完全性唇腭裂患者髁突及下颌升支对称性的锥形束CT研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2016, 32(3): 269-271. 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2016.03.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; XING Feifei, ZHANG Xizhong, WEI Zhiqiang. Condylar and ramus asymmetry in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2016, 32(3): 269-271. 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2016.03.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. 葛晓磊, 刘晔, 刘春艳, 等. 不同牙合期的高角型骨性Ⅲ类患者颏部形态的研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2018, 34(4): 404-404. 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.04.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; GE Xiaolei, LIU Ye, LIU Chunyan, et al. Chin morphology in skeletal class Ⅲ subjects with hyperdivergent at different dentition stages[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2018, 34(4): 404-404. 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.04.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Kamelchuk LS, Grace MG, Major PW. Post-imaging temporomandibular joint space analysis[J]. Cranio, 1996, 14(1): 23-29. 10.1080/08869634.1996.11745945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Schlueter B, Kim KB, Oliver D, et al. Cone beam computed tomography 3D reconstruction of the mandibular condyle[J]. Angle Orthod, 2008, 78(5): 880-888. 10.2319/072007-339.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Habets LL, Bezuur JN, Naeiji M, et al. The orthopanto-mogram, an aid in diagnosis of temporomandibular joint problems. II. The vertical symmetry[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 1988, 15(5): 465-471. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1988.tb00182.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Farber SJ, Maliha SG, Gonchar MN, et al. Effect on facial growth of the management of cleft lip and palate[J]. Ann Plast Surg, 2019, 83(6): 72-76. 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Sabbag A, Denadai R, Raposo-Amaral CA, et al. Electro-myographic activity of the masseter and temporal muscles in patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: 2-Stage versus 1-stage palate repair[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2018, 29(6): 1463-1468. 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Sullivan E, van de Lande LS, El Ghoul K, et al. Growth patterns and shape development of the paediatric mandible—A 3D statistical model[J]. Bone Rep, 2022, 16: 101528. 10.1016/j.bonr.2022.101528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Almaqrami BS, Alhammadi MS, Tang B, et al. Three-dimensional morphological and positional analysis of the temporomandibular joint in adults with posterior crossbite: A cross‐sectional comparative study[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2021, 48(6): 666-677. 10.1111/joor.13156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Rivero-Millán P, Barrera-Mora JM, Espinar-Escalona E, et al. Comparison of condylar position in normal occlusion, class II division 1, class II division 2 and class III malocclusions using CBCT imaging[J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2021, 13(12): 1216-1226. 10.4317/jced.58970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Solberg WK, Bibb CA, Nordstrm BB, et al. Malocclusion associated with temporomandibular joint changes in young adults at autopsy[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1986, 89(4): 326-330. 10.1016/0002-9416(86)90055-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Resi P, Valentino V, Valerio R, et al. Histological findings in TMJ treated with high condilectomy for internal derangement[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2018, 46(8): 1185-1191. 10.1016/j.jcms. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Central South University Medical Sciences are provided here courtesy of Central South University

RESOURCES