open access

Vol 83, No 1 (2024): Folia Morphologica
Original article
Submitted: 2022-12-17
Accepted: 2023-06-11
Published online: 2023-06-19
Get Citation

retrospective evaluation of condylar morphology using panoramic radiography in a sample of Turkish population

Hilal Peker Öztürk1, Hakan Avsever İsmail23, Buğra Şenel13, Hatice Seda Özgedik1, Mehmet Hakan Kurt4
·
Pubmed: 37345390
·
Folia Morphol 2024;83(1):192-199.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Gulhane Dentistry Faculty, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
  2. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology Department, Ankara University, Dentistry Faculty, Ankara, Turkey
  3. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of East Mediterranean, Gazi Mağusa, Cyprus
  4. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

open access

Vol 83, No 1 (2024): Folia Morphologica
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Submitted: 2022-12-17
Accepted: 2023-06-11
Published online: 2023-06-19

Abstract

Background: The temporomandibular joint is one of the most complex anatomic structures. It takes a great role in masticatory system and helps to make possible some functions such as speaking, chewing and swallowing. Clinicians should have sufficient anatomical knowledge to assess relationships of the hard and soft tissues, including the mandibular condyle, glenoid fossa, articular eminence of the temporal bone, the articular disc and its attachments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of different types of mandibular condyles and its distribution according to the age and gender. It was also evaluated whether the condyle types were bilaterally symmetrical or not.

Materials and methods: A total of 1315 digital panoramic images which obtained from the patients suffering from the dental problems were assessed. Demographic data, condylar morphology were noted. All obtained data were analysed by using descriptive statistics. Morphology of mandibular condyles were classified into four shapes as identified in other studies, namely: type I — oval shape, type II — diamond shape, type III — bird beak shape, type IV — crooked finger shape. Two independent examiners, who have 19 and 7 years of experience in oral and dentomaxillofacial radiology, made a consensus and evaluated all images.

Results: A total of 1315 digital panoramic images were assessed. Seven hundred sixty-seven [58.3%] the patients were female and 548 [41.6%] were male. The age range of patients was from 18 to 84 years. Right-left condyle types were
found to be symmetrical in the range of 67% of the subpopulation examined in the study. For the consensus, ‘oval’ condyle was common on both the right and left, while ‘crooked finger’ condyle was the rarest.

Conclusions: The temporomandibular joint is the most important structure for all jaw functions such as speech, swallowing. In order for all these functions to continue in a healthy way, the anatomical structure should be known very well down to the finest detail. Identification of anatomical structures and their variations can play an important role in implant dentistry. Clinicians commonly prefer conventional radiologic methods to evaluate dentomaxillofacial region. Although the most of the variations are asymptomatic and require no treatment, correct identification of these findings will reduce unnecessary further diagnostic assessments and will provide more appropriate treatment plans.

Abstract

Background: The temporomandibular joint is one of the most complex anatomic structures. It takes a great role in masticatory system and helps to make possible some functions such as speaking, chewing and swallowing. Clinicians should have sufficient anatomical knowledge to assess relationships of the hard and soft tissues, including the mandibular condyle, glenoid fossa, articular eminence of the temporal bone, the articular disc and its attachments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of different types of mandibular condyles and its distribution according to the age and gender. It was also evaluated whether the condyle types were bilaterally symmetrical or not.

Materials and methods: A total of 1315 digital panoramic images which obtained from the patients suffering from the dental problems were assessed. Demographic data, condylar morphology were noted. All obtained data were analysed by using descriptive statistics. Morphology of mandibular condyles were classified into four shapes as identified in other studies, namely: type I — oval shape, type II — diamond shape, type III — bird beak shape, type IV — crooked finger shape. Two independent examiners, who have 19 and 7 years of experience in oral and dentomaxillofacial radiology, made a consensus and evaluated all images.

Results: A total of 1315 digital panoramic images were assessed. Seven hundred sixty-seven [58.3%] the patients were female and 548 [41.6%] were male. The age range of patients was from 18 to 84 years. Right-left condyle types were
found to be symmetrical in the range of 67% of the subpopulation examined in the study. For the consensus, ‘oval’ condyle was common on both the right and left, while ‘crooked finger’ condyle was the rarest.

Conclusions: The temporomandibular joint is the most important structure for all jaw functions such as speech, swallowing. In order for all these functions to continue in a healthy way, the anatomical structure should be known very well down to the finest detail. Identification of anatomical structures and their variations can play an important role in implant dentistry. Clinicians commonly prefer conventional radiologic methods to evaluate dentomaxillofacial region. Although the most of the variations are asymptomatic and require no treatment, correct identification of these findings will reduce unnecessary further diagnostic assessments and will provide more appropriate treatment plans.

Get Citation

Keywords

mandibular condyle, anatomy, radiographic interpretation

About this article
Title

retrospective evaluation of condylar morphology using panoramic radiography in a sample of Turkish population

Journal

Folia Morphologica

Issue

Vol 83, No 1 (2024): Folia Morphologica

Article type

Original article

Pages

192-199

Published online

2023-06-19

Page views

462

Article views/downloads

380

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2023.0045

Pubmed

37345390

Bibliographic record

Folia Morphol 2024;83(1):192-199.

Keywords

mandibular condyle
anatomy
radiographic interpretation

Authors

Hilal Peker Öztürk
Hakan Avsever İsmail
Buğra Şenel
Hatice Seda Özgedik
Mehmet Hakan Kurt

References (33)
  1. Al-Saedi IL, Taee RA, asim NHA, et al. A panoramic study of the ogy of mandibular condyle in a sample of population from Basrah City. Int J Morphol. 2020; 38(6): 1707–1712.
  2. Anisuzzaman MMd, Khan S, Khan M, et al. Evaluation of mandibular condylar morphology by orthopantomogram in Bangladeshi population. Update Dental Coll J. 2019; 9(1): 29–31.
  3. Arayapisit T, Ngamsom S, Duangthip P, et al. Understanding the mandibular condyle morphology on panoramic images: A cone beam computed tomography comparison study. Cranio. 2023; 41(4): 354–361.
  4. Ashwinirani SR, Patil ST, Nair B, et al. Morphological variations of condylar process and sigmoid notch using orthopantomograms i̇n western part of Maharashtra population. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2018; 4(1): 160–163.
  5. Chaudhary S, Srivastava D, Jaetli V, et al. Evaluation of condylar morphology using panoramic radiography in normal adult population. Int J Sci Stud. 2015; 2(11): 164–168.
  6. Choudhary A, Ahuja U, Rathore A, et al. Association of temporomandibular joint morphology in patients with and without temporomandibular joint dysfunction: A cone-beam computed tomography based study. Dent Res J. 2020; 17(5): 338–346.
  7. Gindha GS, Singh TP, Sood KS, et al. Amorphometric study of condyloid process of dry human mandible for sexing from its shape. MOJ Anat Physiol. 2017; 3(2): 58–62.
  8. Hegde S, Praveen BN, Shetty SR. Morphological and radiological variations of mandibular condyles in health and diseases: a systematic review. Dentistry. 2013; 03(01).
  9. Honda E, Yoshino N, Sasaki T. Condylar appearance in panoramic radiograms of asymptomatic subjects and patients with temporomandibular disorders. Oral Radiol. 1994; 10(2): 43–53.
  10. Kanjani V, Kalyani P, Patwa N, et al. Morphometric variations in sigmoid notch and condyle of the mandible: A retrospective forensic digital analysis in North Indian population. Arch Med Health Sci. 2020; 8(1): 31–34.
  11. Kaplan AS. Plain, tomographic, and panoramic radiography and radionuclide imaging. In: Kaplan AS, Assael LA (ed.). Temporomandibular disorders, diagnosis and treatment. WB Saunders, Philadelphia 1991: 312–336.
  12. Katsavrias EG, Halazonetis DJ. Condyle and fossa shape in Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: a morphometric tomographic study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(3): 337–346.
  13. Maqbool S, Wani BA, Chalkoo AH, et al. Morphological Assessment of Variations of Condylar Head And Sigmoid Notch on Orthopantomograms of Kashmiri Population. Int J Recent Sci Res. 2018; 9(10): 29162–29165.
  14. Mathew AL, Sholapurkar AA, Pai KM. Condylar changes and its association with age, TMD, and dentition status: a cross-sectional study. Int J Dent. 2011; 2011: 413639.
  15. Nagaraj T, Nigam H, Santosh HN, et al. Morphological variations of the coronoid process, condyle and sigmoid notch as an adjunct in personal identification. J Med Radiol Pathol Surg. 2017; 4(2): 1–5.
  16. Nalla RK, Kruzic JJ, Kinney JH, et al. Effect of aging on the toughness of human cortical bone: evaluation by R-curves. Bone. 2004; 35(6): 1240–1246.
  17. Neto JV, Estrela C, Bueno M, et al. Mandibular condyle dimensional changes in subjects from 3 to 20 years of age using cone- beam computed tomography: a preliminary study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010; 15(5): 172–181.
  18. Okeson JP. History and examination for temporomandibular disorders. In: Okeson JP (ed.). Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. 4th ed. Mosby, St Louis 1998: 234–309.
  19. Oliveira-Santos C, Bernardo RT, Capelozza ALA. Mandibular condyle morphology on panoramic radiographs of asymptomatic temporomandibular joints. IJD Int J Dent (Recife. 2009; 8(3): 114–118.
  20. Orhan K. Introduction to TMJ imaging. In: Rozylo-Kalinowzka I, Orhan K (ed). Imaging of the temporomandibular joint. Springer, Switzerland 2019: 1–9.
  21. Ozgedik S, Karacayli U, Ozarslanturk S, et al. Trifid mandibular canal and lingual accessory mental foramen: a case of two rare anatomical variations. Dentistry Adv Res. 2017; 2: 136.
  22. Ribeiro E, Sanches M, Alonso L, et al. Shape and Symmetry of Human Condyle and Mandibular Fossa. Int J Odontostomatol. 2015; 9(1): 65–72.
  23. Ross BR, Johnston MC. Developmental anomalies and dysfunction. In: Zarb GA, Carlsson GE, Sessle BJ, Mohl ND (eds). Temporomandibular joint and masticatory muscle disorders. Mosby 1994: 221–222.
  24. Sahithi D, Reddy S, Teja Divya DV, et al. Reveal the concealed – morphological variations of the coronoid process, condyle and sigmoid notch in personal identification. Egyp J Forensic Sci. 2016; 6(2): 108–113.
  25. Sakul BU, Bilecenoglu B, Ocak M. Anatomy of the temporomandibular joint. In: Rozylo-Kalinowzka I, Orhan K. (ed). Imaging of the temporomandibular joint. Springer, Switzerland 2019: 9–12.
  26. Shaikh AH, Ahmed S, Ahmed AR, et al. Assessment of radiographic morphology of mandibular condyles: a radiographic study. Folia Morphol. 2022; 81(2): 481–486.
  27. Singh B, Kumar NR, Balan A, et al. Evaluation of normal morphology of mandibular condyle: a radiographic survey. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2020; 10: 51.
  28. Sonal V, Sandeep P, Kapil G, et al. Evaluation of condylar morphology using panoramic radiography. J Adv Clin Res Insights. 2016; 3: 5–8.
  29. Ulhuq A. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion (6th edition). Br Dent J. 2008; 204(9): 535.
  30. Yalcin E, Ararat E. Cone-Beam computed tomography study of mandibular condylar morphology. J Craniofac Surg. 2019; 30(8): 2621–2624.
  31. Yale SH, Allison BD, Hauptfuehrer JD. An epidemiological assessment of mandibular condyle morphology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1966; 21(2): 169–177.
  32. Yale SH, Ceballos M, Kresnoff CS, et al. Some observations on the classification of mandibular condyle types. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1963; 16: 572–577.
  33. Yale SH, Rosenberg HM, Ceballos M, et al. Laminagraphic cephalometry in the analysis of mandibular condyle morphology. A preliminary report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1961; 14: 793–805.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., Grupa Via Medica, Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.: +48 58 320 94 94, faks: +48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl