Online first
Original article
Published online: 2025-02-10

open access

Page views 235
Article views/downloads 158
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Assessment of temporomandibular joint morphology of bifid mandibular condyles: a cone beam computed tomography study

Ayse Zeynep Zengin1, Tuna Sumer2, Kubra Cam1

Abstract

Background: Bifid mandibular condyle (BMC) is an extremely rare condition characterized by dublicity of the head of the mandibular condyle. Knowledge about the morphology of BMC may help to understand the development course of condyle and differential diagnosis of fractures or tumors in condylar area. The aim of this study was to examine temporomandibular joint (TMJ) hard tissue morphology of BMCs.

Materials and methods: 1900 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of the mandibular condylar heads examined for the presence of bifidity. When BMC were identified, morphological assessment and measurements of bone components of TMJ were done.

Results: 69 BMC were detected in 56 patients (3%). It was observed that 43 (76.8%) patients presented unilateral and 13 (23.2%) patients presented bilateral BMCs. 59.4% of condyles were mostly seen in mediolateral (ML) orientation and 40.6% of them were both ML and anteroposterior (AP) orientation. 46.4% of cases showed wide and shallow groove; 53.6% had deep and narrow groove on coronal images. 60 BMCs had osteoarthritic changes.

Conclusions: CBCT is an excellent imaging modality for accurate imaging of the bony components of TMJ. Due to the widespread use of CBCT, the prevalence of BMC is likely to be higher than has been previously reported and reported new cases in literature could be useful for dentists for improving their knowledge about this variation.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Antoniades K, Karakasis D, Elephteriades J. Bifid mandibular condyle resultig from a sagittal fracture of the condylar head. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993; 31(2): 124–126.
  2. Antoniades K, Hadjipetrou L, Antoniades V, et al. Bilateral bifid mandibular condyle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 97(4): 535–538.
  3. Borrás-Ferreres J, Sánchez-Torres A, Gay-Escoda C. Bifid mandibular condyles: A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2018; 23(6): e672–e680.
  4. Cho BH, Jung YH. Nontraumatic bifid mandibular condyles in asymptomatic and symptomatic temporomandibular joint subjects. Imaging Sci Dent. 2013; 43(1): 25.
  5. Coclici A, Roman RA, Crasnean E, et al. An overview of the post-traumatic mandibular bifid condyle. Maedica (Bucur). 2020; 15(2): 258–265.
  6. Daniels JS, Ali I. Post-traumatic bifid condyle associated with temporomandibular joint ankylosis: report of a case and review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005; 99(6): 682–688.
  7. Deniz Y, Geduk G, Zengin AZ. Examination of foramen tympanicum: an anatomical study using cone-beam computed tomography. Folia Morphol. 2018; 77(2): 335–339.
  8. Dennison J, Mahoney P, Herbison P, et al. The false and the true bifid condyles. Homo. 2008; 59(2): 149–159.
  9. Derwich M, Mitus-Kenig M, Pawlowska E. Temporomandibular joints' morphology and osteoarthritic changes in cone-beam computed tomography images in patients with and without reciprocal clicking — a case control study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(10).
  10. Ejima K, Schulze D, Stippig A, et al. 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 sets. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 42(3): 90929410.
  11. Espinosa-Femenia M, Sartorres-Nieto M, Berini-Aytés L, et al. Bilateral bifid mandibular condyle: case report and literature review. Cranio. 2006; 24(2): 137–140.
  12. Güven O. A study on etiopathogenesis and clinical features of multi-headed (bifid and trifid) mandibular condyles and review of the literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018; 46(5): 773–778.
  13. Hersek N, Ozbek M, Taşar F, et al. Bifid mandibular condyle: a case report. Dent Traumatol. 2004; 20(3): 184–186.
  14. Honda K, Larheim TA, Sano T, et al. Thickening of the glenoid fossa in osteoarthritis of the temporomandibular joint. An autopsy study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001; 30(1): 10–13.
  15. Kendirci MY, Göksel S, Özcan İ. Multiheaded mandibular condyles. J Orofac Orthop. 2023; 84(S3): 165–171.
  16. Khojastepour L, Kolahi S, Panahi N, et al. Cone beam computed tomographic assessment of bifid mandibular condyle. J Dent (Tehran). 2015; 12(12): 868–873.
  17. Koç N. Evaluation of osteoarthritic changes in the temporomandibular joint and their correlations with age: A retrospective CBCT study. Dent Med Probl. 2020; 57(1): 67–72.
  18. Koenig LJ. Bifid condyle. In: Koenig LJ. ed. Diagnostic imaging: oral and maxillofacial, 1st ed. Amirsys, Salt Lake City 2012: 22.
  19. Lacout A, Marsot-Dupuch K, Smoker WRK, et al. Foramen tympanicum, or foramen of Huschke: pathologic cases and anatomic CT study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005; 26(6): 1317–1323.
  20. Li Z, Djae KA, Li ZB. Post-traumatic bifid condyle: the pathogenesis analysis. Dent Traumatol. 2011; 27(6): 452–454.
  21. Miloglu O, Yalcin E, Buyukkurt Mc, et al. The frequency of bifid mandibular condyle in a Turkish patient population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010; 39(1): 42–46.
  22. Miloglu O, Yilmaz AB, Yildirim E, et al. Pneumatization of the articular eminence on cone beam computed tomography: prevalence, characteristics and a review of the literature. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011; 40(2): 110–114.
  23. Nikolova SY, Toneva DH, Lazarov NE. Incidence of a bifid mandibular condyle in dry mandibles. J Craniofac Surg. 2017; 28(8): 2168–2173.
  24. Ren YF, Isberg A, Westesson PL. Steepness of the articular eminence in the temporomandibular joint. Tomographic comparison between asymptomatic volunteers with normal disk position and patients with disk displacement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995; 80(3): 258–266.
  25. Sahman H, Sisman Y, Sekerci AE, et al. Detection of bifid mandibular condyle using computed tomography. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012; 17(6): e930–e934.
  26. Stadnicki G. Congenital double condyle of the mandible causing temporomandibular joint ankylosis: report of case. J Oral Surg. 1971; 29(3): 208–211.
  27. Sümbüllü MA, Cağlayan F, Akgül HM, et al. Radiological examination of the articular eminence morphology using cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41(3): 234–240.
  28. Szentpétery A, Kocsis G, Marcsik A. The problem of the bifid mandibular condyle. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990; 48(12): 1254–1257.
  29. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology rinciles and interretation. Mosby, St. Louis 2014: 503–504.
  30. Yasa Y, Akgül HM, Yasa Y, et al. Comparative cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of the osseous morphology of the temporomandibular joint in temporomandibular dysfunction patients and asymptomatic individuals. Oral Radiol. 2018; 34(1): 31–39.