STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The significance of the position of the mandibular condyle in the glenoid fossa remains a controversial subject. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the relationship between condyle position and disk displacement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-two asymptomatic volunteers and 130 symptomatic patients underwent linear tomography and bilateral temporomandibular joint magnetic resonance scans. RESULTS: There was a higher prevalence of distal condyles in symptomatic patients with disk displacement compared with asymptomatic volunteers (P <.05). Distally positioned condyles identified joints with disk displacement with reduction, disk displacement without reduction, or a symptomatic normal joint with a sensitivity of 0.64, 0.56, and 0.33, respectively. Distally positioned condyles identified joints with disk displacement with reduction, disk displacement without reduction, or a symptomatic normal joint with a specificity of 0.56, 0.65, and 0.55, respectively. CONCLUSION: There were more distal condyles in symptomatic subjects with disk displacement, but the reliability of a distal condyle to predict the presence or absence of disk displacement was low.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The significance of the position of the mandibular condyle in the glenoid fossa remains a controversial subject. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the relationship between condyle position and disk displacement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-two asymptomatic volunteers and 130 symptomatic patients underwent linear tomography and bilateral temporomandibular joint magnetic resonance scans. RESULTS: There was a higher prevalence of distal condyles in symptomatic patients with disk displacement compared with asymptomatic volunteers (P <.05). Distally positioned condyles identified joints with disk displacement with reduction, disk displacement without reduction, or a symptomatic normal joint with a sensitivity of 0.64, 0.56, and 0.33, respectively. Distally positioned condyles identified joints with disk displacement with reduction, disk displacement without reduction, or a symptomatic normal joint with a specificity of 0.56, 0.65, and 0.55, respectively. CONCLUSION: There were more distal condyles in symptomatic subjects with disk displacement, but the reliability of a distal condyle to predict the presence or absence of disk displacement was low.