SpringerOpen Newsletter

Receive periodic news and updates relating to SpringerOpen.

Open Access Research

Spatial analysis of condyle position according to sagittal skeletal relationship, assessed by cone beam computed tomography

Jessica M Arieta-Miranda1*, Manuel Silva-Valencia1, Carlos Flores-Mir2, Ney A Paredes-Sampen1 and Luis E Arriola-Guillen1

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Orthodontics, Universidad Mayor de San Marcos (UNMSM), Lima, Peru

2 Department of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

For all author emails, please log on.

Progress in Orthodontics 2013, 14:36  doi:10.1186/2196-1042-14-36

Published: 18 October 2013

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.

Keywords:
Condyle; Temporomandibular joint; Computed tomography; CBCT