Jaime Gateno1, Kevin B Coppelson2, Tianshu Kuang3, Cathy D Poliak4, James J Xia5. 1. Chairman, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Houston Methodist Academic Institute, Houston, TX; and Professor of Clinical Surgery (Oral and Maxillofacial), Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York, NY. 2. Former Advance Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellow, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX. 3. Research Assistant, Surgical Planning Laboratory, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX. 4. Conoco-Phillips Instructional Assistant Professor of Data Science, Associate Director MSDS Program, Mathematics Department, University of Houston, Houston, TX. 5. Director of the Surgical Planning Laboratory, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Houston Methodist Research Institute; Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Houston Methodist Academic Institute, Houston, TX; and Professor of Surgery (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery), Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York, NY. Electronic address: JXia@HoustonMethodist.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our current understanding of unilateral condylar hyperplasia (UCH) was put forth by Obwegeser. He hypothesized that UCH is 2 separate conditions: hemimandibular hyperplasia and hemimandibular elongation. This hypothesis was based on the following 3 assumptions: 1) the direction of overgrowth, in UCH, is bimodal-vertical or horizontal, with rare cases growing obliquely; 2) UCH can expand a hemimandible with and without significant condylar enlargement; and 3) there is an association between the condylar expansion and the direction of overgrowth-minimal expansion resulting in horizontal growth and significant enlargement causing vertical displacement. The purpose of this study was to test these assumptions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the computed tomography scans of 40 patients with UCH. First, we used a Silverman Cluster analysis to determine how the direction of overgrowth is distributed in the UCH population. Next, we evaluated the relationship between hemimandibular overgrowth and condylar enlargement to confirm that overgrowth can occur independently of condylar expansion. Finally, we assessed the relationship between the degree of condylar enlargement and the direction of overgrowth to ascertain if condylar expansion determines the direction of growth. RESULTS: Our first investigation demonstrates that the general impression that UCH is bimodal is wrong. The growth vectors in UCH are unimodally distributed, with the vast majority of cases growing diagonally. Our second investigation confirms the observation that UCH can expand a hemimandible with and without significant condylar enlargement. Our last investigation determined that in UCH, there is no association between the degree of condylar expansion and the direction of the overgrowth. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study disprove the idea that UCH is 2 different conditions: hemimandibular hyperplasia and hemimandibular elongation. It also provides new insights about the pathophysiology of UCH.
PURPOSE: Our current understanding of unilateral condylar hyperplasia (UCH) was put forth by Obwegeser. He hypothesized that UCH is 2 separate conditions: hemimandibular hyperplasia and hemimandibular elongation. This hypothesis was based on the following 3 assumptions: 1) the direction of overgrowth, in UCH, is bimodal-vertical or horizontal, with rare cases growing obliquely; 2) UCH can expand a hemimandible with and without significant condylar enlargement; and 3) there is an association between the condylar expansion and the direction of overgrowth-minimal expansion resulting in horizontal growth and significant enlargement causing vertical displacement. The purpose of this study was to test these assumptions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the computed tomography scans of 40 patients with UCH. First, we used a Silverman Cluster analysis to determine how the direction of overgrowth is distributed in the UCH population. Next, we evaluated the relationship between hemimandibular overgrowth and condylar enlargement to confirm that overgrowth can occur independently of condylar expansion. Finally, we assessed the relationship between the degree of condylar enlargement and the direction of overgrowth to ascertain if condylar expansion determines the direction of growth. RESULTS: Our first investigation demonstrates that the general impression that UCH is bimodal is wrong. The growth vectors in UCH are unimodally distributed, with the vast majority of cases growing diagonally. Our second investigation confirms the observation that UCH can expand a hemimandible with and without significant condylar enlargement. Our last investigation determined that in UCH, there is no association between the degree of condylar expansion and the direction of the overgrowth. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study disprove the idea that UCH is 2 different conditions: hemimandibular hyperplasia and hemimandibular elongation. It also provides new insights about the pathophysiology of UCH.