COMPARISON OF CONDYLAR SURFACE MORPHOLOGY BETWEEN PATIENTS WITH ANGLE CLASS II DIVISION 2 MALOCCLUSION AND THOSE WITH NORMAL OCCLUSION USING CBCT
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To compare the condylar articular surface morphology of the temporomandibular joint between individuals with Class II Division 2 malocclusion and those with normal occlusion. Subjects and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on 40 adults (aged 20–31 years; 22 males and 18 females), divided into two groups: Class II Division 2 (n = 20) and normal occlusion (n = 20). Each participant underwent CBCT imaging of the temporomandibular joint, and the condylar articular surface morphology was assessed separately for each side according to the method of Peyron and Altman (1992). Results: In the Class II Division 2 group, on the left side, normal condylar surfaces accounted for 50%, flat surfaces 30%, worn surfaces 15%, and surfaces showing bone resorption 5%, with no cases of osteophytes or sclerosis. On the right side, the corresponding proportions were 40%, 25%, 20%, 10%, and 5%, with no sclerosis observed. In the normal occlusion group, on the left side, normal condylar surfaces accounted for 80%, flat surfaces 15%, and worn surfaces 5%. On the right side, normal surfaces accounted for 85%, flat surfaces 10%, and worn surfaces 5%. No cases of osteophytes, sclerosis, or bone resorption were observed. Differences between groups were statistically significant on the right side (p < 0.05), but not on the left side (p > 0.05). Conclusion: On the right side, condylar articular surface morphology differed significantly between the two groups, with the Class II Division 2 group showing a lower proportion of normal surfaces compared to the normal occlusion group. On the left side, no statistically significant difference was observed.
Article Details
Keywords
Condylar articular surface morphology, Class II Division 2 malocclusion, temporomandibular joint, CBCT.
References
2. Cho BH, Jung YH. Osteoarthritic changes and condylar positioning of the temporomandibular joint in Korean children and adolescents. Imaging Sci Dent. Sep 2012;42(3):169-74.
3. Doherty M. Osteoarthritis: Diagnosis and Medical/Surgical Management. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 09/01 1992;51.
4. Ganugapanta VR, Ponnada SR, Gaddam KP, et al. Computed Tomographic Evaluation of Condylar Symmetry and Condyle-Fossa Relationship of the Temporomandibular Joint in Subjects with Normal Occlusion and Malocclusion: A Comparative Study. J Clin Diagn Res. Feb 2017;11(2):Zc29-zc33.
5. Grossmann E, Remedi MP, Ferreira LA, Carvalho AC. Magnetic Resonance Image Evaluation of Temporomandibular Joint Osteophytes: Influence of Clinical Factors and Artrogenics Changes. J Craniofac Surg. Mar 2016;27(2):334-8.
6. Li Y, Zhou W, Wu Y, Dai H, Zhou J. The relation between incisal guidance angle and the growth and development of temporomandibular joint: a multi-cross-sectional retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. Jul 28 2021;21(1):380.
7. Walewski L, Tolentino ES, Yamashita FC, Iwaki LCV, da Silva MC. Cone beam computed tomography study of osteoarthritic alterations in the osseous components of temporomandibular joints in asymptomatic patients according to skeletal pattern, gender, and age. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. Jul 2019;128(1):70-77.
8. Ueki K, Nakagawa K, Takatsuka S, Yamamoto E, Laskin DM. Comparison of the stress direction on the TMJ in patients with class I, II, and III skeletal relationships. Orthod Craniofac Res. Feb 2008;11(1):43-50.