| Literature DB >> 28261607 |
Silvia Caruso1, Ennio Storti2, Alessandro Nota3, Shideh Ehsani2, Roberto Gatto1.
Abstract
Aim. Since cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been used for the study of craniofacial morphology, the attention of orthodontists has also focused on the mandibular condyle. The purpose of this brief review is to summarize the recent 3D CBCT images of mandibular condyle. Material and Methods. The eligibility criteria for the studies are (a) studies aimed at evaluating the anatomy of the temporomandibular joint; (b) studies performed with CBCT images; (c) studies on human subjects; (d) studies that were not clinical case-reports and clinical series; (e) studies reporting data on children, adolescents, or young adults (data from individuals with age ≤ 30 years). Sources included PubMed from June 2008 to June 2016. Results. 43 full-text articles were initially screened for eligibility. 13 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 11 articles were finally included in qualitative synthesis. The main topics treated in the studies are the volume and surface of the mandibular condyle, the bone changes on cortical surface, the facial asymmetry, and the optimum position of the condyle in the glenoid fossa. Conclusion. Additional studies will be necessary in the future, constructed with longitudinal methodology, especially in growing subjects. The limits of CBCT acquisitions are also highlighted.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28261607 PMCID: PMC5312052 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2916953
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Data from the studies.
| Authors | Year | Type of study | Number of TMJs | Sample | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saccucci et al. [ | 2012 | Observational study | 188 TMJs | 94 patients (46 females and 48 males; 15–30 years old) | Resultant rendering reconstructions of the left and right temporal mandibular joints (TMJs) were obtained. Subjects were then classified on the basis of ANB angle in three classes (I, II, III). The data of the different classes were compared. |
|
| |||||
| Saccucci et al. [ | 2012 | Observational study | 400 TMJs | 200 patients (15–30 years old, 95 males and 105 females) | The condylar volume, the area, and the morphological index (MI) were compared among class I, class II, and class III young adult subjects. |
|
| |||||
| Huntjens et al. [ | 2008 | Observational study | 40 TMJs | 20 patients (14 girls and six boys; mean age 11.21 ± 3.54 years) | Condylar asymmetry and a wide variety of condylar destruction patterns were observed in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis assessed by cone-beam computed tomography. |
|
| |||||
| Zhang et al. [ | 2014 | Cross-sectional study | 42 TMJs | 42 TMJs evaluated by 7 dentists | 42 temporomandibular joints were scanned, respectively, with the CBCT units ProMax® 3D (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland) and DCT PRO (Vatech, Co., Ltd., Yongin-Si, Republic of Korea) at normal and high resolutions. Seven dentists evaluated all the test images. |
|
| |||||
| Barghan et al. | 2012 | Review | / | / | Application of cone beam computed tomography for assessment of the temporomandibular joints. |
|
| |||||
| Dos Anjos Pontual et al. [ | 2012 | Observational study | 638 TMJs | 319 patients (250 women and 69 men, range 10–89 years old) | The differences in percentage of bone changes among the categories of mobility were compared (ipo, iper, normo, and based on mouth opening) and the right and left sides. |
|
| |||||
| Alexiou et al. [ | 2009 | Observational study | 142 TMJs | 71 patients (60 females and 11 males) (20–75 years old) | Evaluation of the severity of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritic changes related to age using cone beam computed tomography. |
|
| |||||
| Farronato et al. [ | 2010 | Observational study | 60 TMJs | 30 children (8–13 years old) | The mandible was isolated from other craniofacial structures; the whole mandibular volume and its components' volumes (condyle, ramus, hemibody, and hemisymphysis on right side and on left side) were calculated. |
|
| |||||
| L. Palomo and J.M. Palomo [ | 2009 | Review | / | / | Cone beam CT for diagnosis and treatment planning in trauma cases. |
|
| |||||
| Schlueter et al. [ | 2008 | Cross-sectional study | 50 condyles | / | Three linear three-dimensional measurements were made on each of the 50 condyles at 8 different Hounsfield unit (HU) windows. These measurements were compared with the anatomic truth. |
|
| |||||
| Zhang et al. [ | 2016 | Case-control study | 20 TMJs | 5 patients with facial asymmetry and 5 asymptomatic subjects, mean age, 26 ± 1.2 years | The TMJ spaces and condylar and ramus angles were assessed and compared between the groups. |
|
| |||||
| Illipronti-Filho et al. [ | 2015 | Observational study | 40 TMJs | 9 males (mean 7.9 years) and 11 females (mean 8.2 years) | Dimensional measurements of the condyles between the right and left sides and crossed and noncrossed sides in sagittal and coronal view were made. |
|
| |||||
| Ikeda et al. [ | 2011 | Observational study | 24 TMJs | 10 males, 12 females; range 12–25 years old | Joint-space distances between the condyle and glenoid fossa were measured at the medial, central, and lateral positions in the coronal plane and medial and lateral positions in the axial plane. |
Quality of the studies.
| Authors | Type of study | Sample selection adequacy based on age range across the group/s | Sample selection adequacy based on gender across the group/s | Description of at least an error analysis method | Complete description of technical data about CBCT acquisition | Description of blinding procedure | Prior estimation of sample size or a posteriori power analysis | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longitudinal Construction: 2 | Full: 2 points: | Full: 2 points | Yes: 1 point | Complete: 2 | Yes: 1 point | Yes: 1 point | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Saccucci et al. [ | + | + | ++ | + | + | 0 | + | 7 |
|
| ||||||||
| Saccucci et al. [ | + | + | ++ | + | + | 0 | + | 7 |
|
| ||||||||
| Huntjens et al. [ | + | + | + | 0 | ++ | 0 | 0 | 5 |
|
| ||||||||
| Zhang et al. [ | + | 0 | 0 | + | ++ | 0 | 0 | 4 |
|
| ||||||||
| Dos Anjos Pontual et al. [ | + | ++ | + | + | + | 0 | 0 | 5 |
|
| ||||||||
| Alexiou et al. [ | + | ++ | + | + | + | 0 | 0 | 6 |
|
| ||||||||
| Farronato et al. [ | + | ++ | + | + | + | 0 | + | 7 |
|
| ||||||||
| Schlueter et al. [ | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | ++ | 0 | 0 | 3 |
|
| ||||||||
| Zhang et al. [ | + | ++ | ++ | + | + | 0 | 0 | 7 |
|
| ||||||||
| Illipronti-Filho et al. [ | + | ++ | ++ | + | + | 0 | + | 8 |
|
| ||||||||
| Ikeda et al. [ | + | + | ++ | + | + | 0 | 0 | 6 |
Figure 1Flow chart of the study.