Comparison between Condyles in Affected and Unaffected Sides of Patients with and without Clefts by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Original Research

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Aug 18, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v15i2.1069
Keywords:
Cleft lip, Radiography, Orthodontics, Condyles, CBCT

Main Article Content

Jamilian Abdolreza
Module leader, City of London Dental School, University of Bolton, London, UK. Professor, Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Rana Mahjoobi Acsil
Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Ahmad Reza Tallaeipoor
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Sandra Mehralizadeh
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Korosh Majidi
Orthodontics, Private Practice Smile Tailor
Vincenzo Grassia
Associate Professor, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.
Ludovica Nucci
Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess the effect of cleft lip and palate (CLP) on mandibular condylar volume and dimensions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).


Methods and Materials: This cross-sectional study was conducted on the head, neck, and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) CBCT scans of 18 patients with unilateral CLP (UCLP) and 18 non-cleft controls with class I occlusion. The ITK-SNAP software measured the mediolateral and anteroposterior dimensions and the height and volume of the right and left condyles. Comparisons were made by T-test and paired sample t-test (alpha=0.05).


Results: The mediolateral dimension of the condyle of the affected side in patients with UCLP was significantly smaller than the counterpart condyles in control controls, with a mean difference of 2.33 mm, P=0.002. This value on the unaffected side of patients with UCLP was also significantly smaller than the right and left condyles in control controls, with a mean difference of 2.05, P=0.005. Anteroposterior dimension, condylar height, and volume at the affected and unaffected sides of patients with UCLP were not significantly different within the group or when compared with healthy controls.


Conclusions: According to the present results, only the mediolateral width of the condyle at both sides in patients with UCLP was significantly smaller than the values in the right and left condyles of non-cleft controls. No other significant within-group or inter-group differences were found.

Article Details

How to Cite
Abdolreza , J., Mahjoobi Acsil , R., Tallaeipoor , A. R., Mehralizadeh , S., Majidi , K., Grassia, V., & Nucci, L. (2024). Comparison between Condyles in Affected and Unaffected Sides of Patients with and without Clefts by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: Original Research. International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation, 15(2), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v15i2.1069
Issue
Vol. 15 No. 2 (2024): International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

Dixon MJ, Marazita ML, Beaty TH, Murray JC. Cleft lip and palate: understanding genetic and environmental influences. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(3):167-178.

A Oner D, Tastan H. Cleft lip and palate: Epidemiology and etiology. Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;5(4).

Jiang C, Yin N, Zheng Y, Song T. Characteristics of Maxillary Morphology in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Compared to Normal Subjects and Skeletal Class III Patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(6):e517-e523.

Doğan S, Önçağ G, Akın Y. Craniofacial development in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. British J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;44(1):28-33.

Capelozza L Jr, Taniguchi SM, Da Silva OG Jr. Craniofacial Morphology of Adult Unoperated Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 1993;30(4):376-381.

Celikoglu M, Halicioglu K, Buyuk SK, Sekerci AE, Ucar FI. Condylar and ramal vertical asymmetry in adolescent patients with cleft lip and palate evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(5):691-697.

Katsavrias EG, Dibbets JMH. The Growth of Articular Eminence Height During Craniofacial Growth Period. Cranio®. 2001;19(1):13-20.

Chang C, Wang D, Yang M, Hsu W, Hsu M. Functional disorders of the temporomandibular joints: Internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint. The Kaohsiung J of Med Scie. 2018;34(4):223-230.

Uslu-Akcam O, Memikoglu U, Akcam M, Ozel M. Mandibular symmetry in participants with a unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Cleft Lip Palate Craniofac Anomal. 2017;4(1):15.

Shrestha A, Takahashi M, Yamaguchi T, Adel M, Furuhata M, Hikita Y, Yoshida H, Nakawaki T, Maki K. Three-dimensional evaluation of mandibular volume in patients with cleft lip and palate during the deciduous dentition period. Angle Orthod. 2020 Jan;90(1):85-91.

Celikoglu M, Ucar FI, Buyuk SK, Celik S, Sekerci AE, Akin M. Evaluation of the mandibular volume and correlating variables in patients affected by unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Invest. 2015;20(7):1741-1746.

Uçar FI, Buyuk SK, Şekerci AE, Celikoglu M. Evaluation of temporomandibular fossa and mandibular condyle in adolescent patients affected by bilateral cleft lip and palate using cone beam computed tomography. Scanning. 2016;38(6):720-726.

Gomes AF, Brasil DM, Silva AIV, Freitas DQ, Haiter-Neto F, Groppo FC. Accuracy of ITK-SNAP software for 3D analysis of a non-regular topography structure. Oral Radiol. 2019;36(2):183-189.

Veli I, Uysal T, Ozer T, Ucar FI, Eruz M. Mandibular asymmetry in unilateral and bilateral posterior crossbite patients using cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(6):966-974.

Schlueter B, Kim KB, Oliver D, Sortiropoulos G. Cone Beam Computed Tomography 3D Reconstruction of the Mandibular Condyle. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(5):880-888.

Hwang HS, Hwang CH, Lee KH, Kang BC. Maxillofacial 3-dimensional image analysis for the diagnosis of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(6):779-785.

Van Elslande DC, Russett SJ, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Mandibular asymmetry diagnosis with panoramic imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(2):183-192.

Kurt G, Bayram M, Uysal T, Ozer M. Mandibular asymmetry in cleft lip and palate patients. Eur J Orthod. 2009;32(1):19-23.

Ozturk T, Soylu S, Coban G, Turker G. Mandibular Radiomorphometric Characteristics of Individuals with Bilateral or Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. May 2023:105566562311785.

Habets Llmh, Bezuur Jn, Naeiji M, Hansson Tl. The Orthopantomogram®, an aid in diagnosis of temporomandibular joint problems. J Oral Rehab. 1988;15(5):465-471.

Paknahad M, Shahidi S, Bahrampour E, Beladi AS, Khojastepour L. Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Evaluation of Mandibular Asymmetry in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(7):919-924.