Evaluation of Glenoid Fossa Morphology in Different Facial Growth Patterns: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study
Keywords:Glenoid Fossa, Growth Pattern, CBCT, TMJ
Purpose: The aim of current study was to assess the glenoid fossa morphology among different vertical skeletal patterns using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: The CBCT images of 63 patients with Class I sagittal skeletal pattern were classified into three groups based on posterior facial height (PFH)/ Anterior facial height (AFH) ratio. Each group divided in to normal, horizontal and vertical growth pattern groups. Depth, width and inclination of glenoid fossa were measured and assessed on CBCT images. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post-hoc test were used to compare mean values of measured variables among the groups.
Results: The width (28.76±0.79) and depth (14.61±0.514) of glenoid fossa were lower in horizontal in comparison to vertical and normal growth patterns (p-value<0.05). Although steepness of glenoid fossa was higher in normal growth pattern (123.8±16.68), no statistically significant differences were seen (p-value: 0.819).
Conclusion: The width and depth of glenoid fossa were significantly lower in horizontal growth pattern.
Temporomandibular joint anatomy assessed by CBCT images. Caruso S, Storti E, Nota A, Ehsani S, Gatto R. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017.
Skin doses on the lens for temporomandibular joint exam in cone beam computed tomography. Oliveira MVLd, Andrade MEA, Batista WO, Campos PSF. Brazil Arch Biol Technol. 2015;58(6):886-90.
Comparison of condylar position in hyperdivergent and hypodivergent facial skeletal types. Girardot Jr RA. Angle Orthodontist. 2001;71(4):240-6.
Changes in articular eminence inclination during the craniofacial growth period. Katsavrias EG. Angle Orthodontist. 2002;72(3):258-64.
Condyle and fossa shape in Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: a morphometric tomographic study. Katsavrias EG, Halazonetis DJ. Ame J Orthodont Dentofac Orthoped. 2005;128(3):337-46.
Three-dimensional evaluation of TMJ parameters in Class II and Class III patients. Krisjane Z, Urtane I, Krumina G, Zepa K. Stomatologija. 2009;11(1):32-6.
Condylar volume and condylar area in class I, class II and class III young adult subjects. Saccucci M, D’Attilio M, Rodolfino D, Festa F, Polimeni A, Tecco S. Head Face Med. 2012;8(1):34.
Correlation between condylar position and different sagittal skeletal facial types. Paknahad M, Shahidi S, Abbaszade H. J Orofacial Orthoped. 2016;77(5):350-6.
Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in Class II Division 1 and Class III malocclusion patients: condylar symmetry and condyle-fossa relationship. Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR, Vitral RWF. Am J Orthodont Dentofac Orthoped. 2009;136(2):199-206.
Computed tomography evaluation of temporomandibular joint alterations in patients with class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions: condyle-fossa relationship. Vitral RWF, de Souza Telles C, Fraga MR, de Oliveira RSMF, Tanaka OM. Am J Orthodont Dentofac Orthopedic. 2004;126(1):48-52.
Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography based comparison of condylar position and morphology according to the vertical skeletal pattern. Park IY, Kim JH, Park YH. Korean J Orthodont. 2015;45(2):66-73.
Association between condylar position and vertical skeletal craniofacial morphology: A cone beam computed tomography study. Paknahad M, Shahidi S. Int Orthodont. 2017;15(4):740-51.
Comparison of Glenoid Fossa Morphology Between Different Sagittal Skeletal Pattern Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Khademi B, Karandish M, Paknahad M, Farmani S. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(8):e789-e92.
Functional and morphologic considerations of the articular eminence. Widman DJ. Angle Orthodont. 1988;58(3):221-36.
Comparative Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Evaluation Of Temporomandibular Joint Position and Morphology in Skeletal Class II Females. Lin YXM, Wu H, Zhang H, Wang S, Qi K. J Int Med Res 2020;48(2):300060519892388. doi: 10.1177/0300060519892388.
Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. J Canada Dent Associat. 2006;72(1):75.
Cone beam computed tomography 3D reconstruction of the mandibular condyle. Schlueter B, Kim KB, Oliver D, Sortiropoulos G. Angle Orthodont. 2008;78(5):880-8.
Cephalometrics for you and me. Steiner C. Am J Orthodontic. 1953;39(10):729-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7
The cranial base as an aetiological factor in malocclusion. Hopkin G, Houston W, James G. Angle Orthodontist. 1968;38(3):250-5.
Some relationships between the glenoid fossa position and various skeletal discrepancies. Droel R, Isaacson RJ. Am J Orthodontic. 1972;61(1):64-78.
Tissue reactions in the temporomandibular joint resulting from anterior displacement of the mandible in the monkey. Stöckli PW, Willert HG. Am J Orthodontic Dentofacial Orthopedic. 1971;60(2):142-55.
Cone-beam CT evaluation of temporomandibular joint in permanent dentition according to Angle's classification. Song J, Cheng M, Qian Y, Chu F. Oral Radiol. 2020;36(3):261-6.
Characteristics of articular fossa and condyle in patients with temporomandibular joint complaint. Okur A, Ozkiris M, Kapusuz Z, Karaçavus S, Saydam L. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(15):2131-5.
Condylar position assessed by magnetic resonance imaging after various bite position registrations. Kandasamy S, Boeddinghaus R, Kruger E. Am J Orthodontic Dentofacial Orthopedic. 2013;144(4):512-7.
Tomographic assessment of temporomandibular joint osseous articular surface contour and spatial relationships associated with disc displacement and disc length. Major PW, Kinniburgh RD, Nebbe B, Prasad NG, Glover KE. Am J Orthodontic Dentofacial Orthopedic. 2002;121(2):152-61.
Assessment of optimal condylar position with limited cone-beam computed tomography. Ikeda K, Kawamura A. Am J Orthodontic Dentofacial Orthopedic. 2009;135(4):495-501.
Cone beam computed tomography imaging in the evaluation of the temporomandibular joint. Barghan S, Merrill R, Tetradis S. J California Dent Associat. 2010;38(1):33-9.
Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians. Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J. PloS one. 2015;10(3):e0121682.
Spatial analysis of condyle position according to sagittal skeletal relationship, assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Arieta-Miranda JM, Silva-Valencia M, Flores-Mir C, Paredes-Sampen NA, Arriola-Guillen LE. Progress Orthodontic. 2013;14(1):36.
Imaging of the temporomandibular joint: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Brooks SL, Brand JW, Gibbs SJ, Hollender L, Lurie AG, Omnell K-Å, et al. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 1997;83(5):609-18.
Radiological examination of the articular eminence morphology using cone beam CT. Sümbüllü M, Cağlayan F, Akgül H, Yilmaz A. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2012;41(3):234-40.
Differences in articular-eminence inclination between medieval and contemporary human populations. Kranjčić J, Vojvodić D, Žabarović D, Vodanović M, Komar D, Mehulić K. Arch Oral Biol. 2012;57(8):1147-52.
Assessments of inclinations of the mandibular fossa by computed tomography in an Asian population. Wu C-K, Hsu JT, Shen YW, Chen JH, Shen WC, Fuh LJ. Clin Oral Invest. 2012;16(2):443-50.
Correlation between eminence steepness and condyle disc movements in temporomandibular joints with internal derangements on magnetic resonance imaging. Gökalp H, Türkkahraman H, Bzeizi N. Europ J Orthodontic. 2001;23(5):579-84.
Tomographic assessment of temporomandibular joints in patients with malocclusion. Cohlmia JT, Ghosh J, Sinha PK, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Angle Orthodontist. 1996;66(1):27-36.
Graber T, Vanarsdall R, Vig K. Current principles and techniques1994. 685 p.
Condyle and fossa shape in Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: a morphometric tomographic study. Katsavrias EG, Halazonetis DJ. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(3):337-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.05.024 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168330
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.