Journals / Anatomy / 2019 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

Clinical evaluation of the temporomandibular joint anatomy using hologram models: a retrospective study

Journal
Anatomy
Pages
33–39
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Statistical results indicated that there were gender differences among the parameters.Conclusion: The results of the present study point out to the importance of the gross anatomy of the TMJ and revealed thedifferences between genders and individuals.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is the only synovial joint in head region and is exposed to very strong pressure,especially during chewing.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The number of studies on prosthesis implantations for the condylar process is also increasing; therefore, the three-dimensional anatomical organization of the TMJbecomes important.Methods: Computed tomography images of 160 healthy individuals (82 women, 78 men) submitted to the RadiologyDepartment of Bal›kesir University Hospital from 2016 and to the first three months of 2018 were evaluated retrospectively todescribe the detailed three-dimensional anatomical organization of this joint.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Statistical results indicated that there were gender differences among the parameters.Conclusion: The results of the present study point out to the importance of the gross anatomy of the TMJ and revealed thedifferences between genders and individuals.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is the only synovial joint in head region and is exposed to very strong pressure,especially during chewing. Disorders of this joint are quite common and occur with severe pain. Recent studies focused onthe ideal surgical procedures to manage disorders and pathologies of TMJ. The number of studies on prosthesis implantations for the condylar process is also increasing; therefore, the three-dimensional anatomical organization of the TMJbecomes important.Methods: Computed tomography images of 160 healthy individuals (82 women, 78 men) submitted to the RadiologyDepartment of Bal›kesir University Hospital from 2016 and to the first three months of 2018 were evaluated retrospectively todescribe the detailed three-dimensional anatomical organization of this joint. The anterior, posterior and superior articular spacesbetween the condylar process and the temporal bone were measured. Anteroposterior condyle diameter and condyle heightwere also evaluated. Data were compared for age and gender.Results: The mean value of superior articular distance was measured as 2.39 mm, anterior articular distance 1.83 mm, posterior articular distance 1.99 mm and diameter of the condylar process 10.38 mm. Statistical results indicated that there were gender differences among the parameters.Conclusion: The results of the present study point out to the importance of the gross anatomy of the TMJ and revealed thedifferences between genders and individuals. These data may guide surgeons for planning the ideal surgical protocols during managing of joint disorders.

🔖

Cite This Article

VATANSEVER, A., ÖZCAN, E., KUŞ, İ., KEYİK, B., SAYGILI, Ö. K., DEMİRYÜREK, D. (2022). Clinical evaluation of the temporomandibular joint anatomy using hologram models: a retrospective study. Anatomy, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 33–39. https://ajindex.com/articles/439458

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Nascimento Falcao I, Cal Alonso MBC, da Silva LH, Lopes S, Comar LP, Costa ALF. 3D morphology analysis of TMJ articular eminence in magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Dent 2017;2017: 5130241
  2. Kim DG, Haghighi A, Kwon HJ, Coogan JS, Nicolella DP, Johnson TB, Kim HD, Kim N, Agnew AM. Sex dependent mechanical properties of the human mandibular condyle. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017;71:184–91
  3. Paglio AE, Bradley AP, Tubbs RS, Loukas M, Kozlowski PB, Dilandro AC, Sakamoto Y, Iwanaga J, Schmidt C, D’Antoni AV. Morphometric analysis of temporomandibular joint elements. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018;46:63–6
  4. Coogan JS, Kim DG, Bredbenner TL, Nicolella DP. Determination of sex differences of human cadaveric mandibular condyles using statistical shape and trait modeling. Bone 2018;106:35–41
  5. Saccucci M, D’Attilio M, Rodolfino D, Festa F, Polimeni A, Tecco S. Condylar volume and condylar area in class I, class II and class III young adult subjects. Head Face Med 2012;8:34
  6. Zhang YL, Song JL, Xu XC, Zheng LL, Wang QY, Fan YB, Liu Z. Morphologic analysis of the temporomandibular Joint between patients with facial asymmetry and asymptomatic subjects by 2D and 3D evaluation: a preliminary study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95: e3052
  7. Kanavakis G, Mehta N. The role of occlusal curvatures and maxillary arch dimensions in patients with signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders. Angle Orthod 2014;84:96–101
  8. Al-Saleh MA, Alsufyani N, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Major PW. Changes in temporomandibular joint morphology in class II patients treated with fixed mandibular repositioning and evaluated through 3D imaging: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015;18:185–201
  9. Iguchi R, Yoshizawa K, Moroi A, Tsutsui T, Hotta A, Hiraide R, Takayama A, Tsunoda T, Saito Y, Sato M, Baba N, Ueki K. Comparison of temporomandibular joint and ramus morphology between class II and class III cases before and after bi-maxillary osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2017;45:2002–9
  10. Obamiyi S, Malik S, Wang Z, Singh S, Rossouw EP, Fishman L, Feng C, Michelogiannakis D, Tallents RH. Radiographic features associated with temporomandibular joint disorders among African, White, Chinese, Hispanic, and Indian racial groups. Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21:1495–500
  11. Borahan MO, Mayil M, Pekiner FN. Using cone beam computed tomography to examine the prevalence of condylar bony changes in a Turkish subpopulation. Niger J Clin Pract 2016;19:259–66
  12. Halpern LR, Levine M, Dod