IMEMR
EMRO
66.92
Index Copernicus
ICICICICICICICIC
Volume 3, Issue 1 (2022)
J Clinic Care Skill 2022, 3(1): 27-30 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zaheri T, Dabbaghi A, Daneshnia T. Evaluation of Morphological Variations of Iranian Mandible Condyles. J Clinic Care Skill 2022; 3 (1) :27-30
URL: http://jccs.yums.ac.ir/article-1-126-en.html
URL: http://jccs.yums.ac.ir/article-1-126-en.html
1- Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology Department, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. Ahvaz, Iran
2- Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology Department, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. Ahvaz, Iran , tahadaneshnia@yahoo.com
2- Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology Department, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. Ahvaz, Iran , tahadaneshnia@yahoo.com
Abstract: (1051 Views)
Aims: The morphology of the condyle varies according to the race of the population in different places. Moreover, the identification of morphologies can be effective in diagnosing the pathogenesis and type of treatment of patients. This study aimed to examine condyle morphology images using digital panoramic imaging.
Material & Methods: This study was performed as a retrospective using panoramic images available in the archives of the Private Radiology Center located in Ahvaz in Iran 2021. The digital panoramic images were taken by a South Korean VATECH.PEH 2500 panoramic device. The images were investigated in terms of condyle shape, age, sex, and bilateral symmetry. SPSS 16 software was used for data analysis. The Chi-square test was used for the statistical analysis of data.
Finding: The results showed that 47.7% of patients had round morphology, 11.9% had diamond morphology, 21.9% had finger morphology and 18.5% had bird beak morphology. After evaluations, the results showed that there was no significant relationship between age and sex of patients with condylar morphology.
Conclusion: Round morphology was higher in all populations than in other morphologies. Also, its prevalence was higher in both sexes than in other morphologies. However, no significant relationship was observed between them.
Material & Methods: This study was performed as a retrospective using panoramic images available in the archives of the Private Radiology Center located in Ahvaz in Iran 2021. The digital panoramic images were taken by a South Korean VATECH.PEH 2500 panoramic device. The images were investigated in terms of condyle shape, age, sex, and bilateral symmetry. SPSS 16 software was used for data analysis. The Chi-square test was used for the statistical analysis of data.
Finding: The results showed that 47.7% of patients had round morphology, 11.9% had diamond morphology, 21.9% had finger morphology and 18.5% had bird beak morphology. After evaluations, the results showed that there was no significant relationship between age and sex of patients with condylar morphology.
Conclusion: Round morphology was higher in all populations than in other morphologies. Also, its prevalence was higher in both sexes than in other morphologies. However, no significant relationship was observed between them.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2022/01/24 | Accepted: 2022/02/12 | Published: 2022/03/12
Received: 2022/01/24 | Accepted: 2022/02/12 | Published: 2022/03/12
References
1. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: Principles and interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. [link]
2. Hsieh Y-J, Darvann TA, Hermann NV, Larsen P, Liao Y-F, Kreiborg S. Three-dimensional assessment of facial morphology in children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and moderate to severe TMJ involvement using 3D surface scans. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):799-807. [DOI:10.1007/s00784-019-02962-5] [PMID]
3. Serindere G, Aktuna Belgin C, Serindere M. Volumetric and morphological analysis of condyle and glenoid fossa on computed tomography. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277(9):2581-7. [DOI:10.1007/s00405-020-06078-5] [PMID]
4. Derwich M, Mitus-Kenig M, Pawlowska E. Morphology of the temporomandibular joints regarding the presence of osteoarthritic changes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(8):2923. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph17082923] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Bedran LM, Santos AASMDd. Changes in temporomandibular joint anatomy, changes in condylar translation, and their relationship with disc displacement: magnetic resonance imaging study. Radiol Bras. 2019;52(2):85-91. [DOI:10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0020] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Uematsu H, Ichida T, Masumi S-I, Morimoto Y, Tanaka T, Konoo T, et al. Diagnostic image analyses of activator treated temporomandibular joint in growth and maturing stages. Cranio. 2002;20(4):254-63. [DOI:10.1080/08869634.2002.11746217] [PMID]
7. Karlo CA, Stolzmann P, Habernig S, Müller L, Saurenmann T, Kellenberger CJ. Size, shape and age-related changes of the mandibular condyle during childhood. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(10):2512-7. [DOI:10.1007/s00330-010-1828-1] [PMID]
8. Shriki J, Lev R, Wong BF, Sundine MJ, Hasso AN. Bifid mandibular condyle: CT and MR imaging appearance in two patients: Case report and review of the literature. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(7):1865-8. [link]
9. Mawani F, Lam EW, Heo G, McKee I, Raboud DW, Major PW. Condylar shape analysis using panoramic radiography units and conventional tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2005;99(3):341-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.07.011] [PMID]
10. Ara SA, Patil BM, Ashraf S. Condylar morphological variants and its association with age, TMD and dentition status: A digital panoramic study. IP Int J Maxillofac Imaging. 2021;2(1):10-6. [link]
11. Arayapisit T, Ngamsom S, Duangthip P, Wongdit S, Wattanachaisiri S, Joonthongvirat Y, et al. Understanding the mandibular condyle morphology on panoramic images: A conebeam computed tomography comparison study. Cranio. 2020;1-8. [DOI:10.1080/08869634.2020.1857627] [PMID]
12. Singh B, Kumar NR, Balan A, Nishan M, Haris P, Jinisha M, et al. Evaluation of normal morphology of mandibular condyle: A radiographic survey. J Clin Imag Sci. 2020;10:51. [DOI:10.25259/JCIS_84_2020] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. 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(2):108-13. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejfs.2015.11.003]
14. Ribeiro EC, Sanches ML, Alonso LG, Smith RL, Ribeiro E, Sanches M, et al. Shape and symmetry of human condyle and mandibular fossa. Int J Odontostomatol. 2015;9(1):65-72. [DOI:10.4067/S0718-381X2015000100010]
15. Ishibashi H, Takenoshita Y, Ishibashi K, Oka M. Age-related changes in the human mandibular condyle: A morphologic, radiologic, and histologic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53(9):1016-23. [DOI:10.1016/0278-2391(95)90117-5]
16. 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. [DOI:10.1155/2011/413639] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |