收稿日期: 2020-09-23
网络出版日期: 2021-02-07
基金资助
宁夏回族自治区重点研发计划重点项目课题(2018BEG02012)
Cone-beam CT evaluation of temporomandibular joint in skeletal class Ⅱ female adolescents with different vertical patterns
Received date: 2020-09-23
Online published: 2021-02-07
Supported by
Key Project of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Key Research and Development Program(2018BEG02012)
目的: 探讨不同垂直骨面型骨性Ⅱ类青少年女性颞下颌关节形态和位置特征。方法: 纳入北京大学口腔医院正畸科初诊拍摄大视野锥形束CT(cone-beam CT,CBCT)的11~14岁女性80例,按照上牙槽座点-鼻根点-下牙槽座点角(subspinale-nasion-supramental angle,ANB)和下颌平面角(Frankfort horizontal plane-gonion-gnathion angle,FH-GoGn)大小分为骨性Ⅰ类均角组(组1,0°≤ANB<4°,22°≤FH-GoGn≤32°),骨性Ⅱ类低角组(组2,ANB≥4°,FH-GoGn<22°)、均角组(组3,ANB≥4°,22°≤FH-GoGn≤32°)和高角组(组4,ANB≥4°,FH-GoGn>32°),每组20例,导入Dolphin软件进行头影测量和关节形态、位置测量。分别使用配对t检验、方差分析和卡方检验比较双侧关节对称性和关节形态及位置的组间差异,采用相关性分析探索骨性Ⅱ类人群头影测量值与关节测量项目间相关关系。结果: (1)关节对称性分析中,四组都存在少量差异有统计学意义的测量项目;组4双侧髁突位置不对称的样本量最多(65%), 其余三组比例相近,但差异无统计学意义。(2)对比组1和组3,关节形态学测量差异无统计学意义;髁突位置组1以前位和中位为主,组3居于后位者明显多于组1(χ2=6.936,P<0.05)。(3)在组2、3、4中,组2关节窝深度最深(H2&4=10.517,P=0.002),关节上间隙(LSD-t2&3=3.408,LSD-t2&4=5.369,P<0.001)、外间隙(LSD-t2&3=2.767,LSD-t2&4=3.350,P=0.001)最大;组4髁突长轴径最小(H2&4=13.374,P<0.001),关节窝垂直距最大(LSD-t2&4=4.561,P<0.001;LSD-t3&4=2.713,P=0.007),关节内间隙(LSD-t2&4=-4.083,P<0.001)、中间隙(LSD-t2&4=-4.201,P<0.001)最小。从组2、组3到组4,后位髁突所占比例逐渐升高。相关性分析显示,ANB与关节前间隙呈显著正相关(r=0.270,P=0.037),与髁突长轴角呈显著负相关(r=-0.296,P=0.022);FH-GoGn与关节上间隙(r=-0.488,P<0.001)、后间隙(r= -0.272,P=0.035)、内间隙(r=-0.390,P=0.002)、中间隙(r=-0.425,P=0.001)、外间隙(r=-0.331,P=0.010)、关节窝深度(r=-0.363,P=0.004)、关节结节后斜面倾斜度(r=-0.259,P=0.046)、髁突长轴径(r=-0.327,P=0.011)呈显著负相关,与关节窝垂直距呈显著正相关(r=0.370,P=0.004)。结论: Ⅱ类矢状骨面型的关节特征主要体现在髁突位置而非关节形态。Ⅱ类不同垂直骨面型关节形态及位置的差异更多地体现在关节间隙以及髁突和关节窝位置,从低角到高角关节窝位置逐渐增高,髁突后位比例逐渐增大。Ⅱ类高角的关节窝位置最高,髁突后位比例最大,关节间隙最小,关节窝深度最浅,髁突长轴径最短,关节不稳定因素最多,在进行正畸治疗时要尤其注意。
关键词： 颞下颌关节; 锥形束计算机体层摄影术; 骨性Ⅱ类; 垂直骨面型; 青少年
周境 , 刘怡 . 不同垂直骨面型骨性Ⅱ类青少年女性颞下颌关节锥形束CT测量分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021 , 53(1) : 109 -119 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.01.017
Objective: To compare temporomandibular joint (TMJ) morphology and position among skeletal class Ⅱ female adolescents with different vertical patterns using cone-beam CT (CBCT). Methods: Diagnostic CBCT images of 80 female patients aged 11 to 14 years were assessed retrospectively. According to subspinale-nasion-supramental angle (ANB) and Frankfort horizontal plane-gonion-gnathion angle (FH-GoGn), the participants were categorized into four groups (20 subjects each), i.e. class Ⅰ normal angle (group 1, 0°≤ANB<4°, 22°≤FH-GoGn≤32°), class Ⅱ low (group 2, ANB≥4°, FH-GoGn<22°), normal (group 3, ANB≥4°, 22°≤FH-GoGn≤32°) and high angle (group 4, ANB≥4°, FH-GoGn>32°). Cephalometrics, morphology and position of TMJ were measured in Dolphin software. Using paired-samples t test to analyze TMJ symmetry, One-way analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA) and Chi-square tests to detect differences among the groups. The correlations between cephalometrics and TMJ measurements were also analysed within the skeletal class Ⅱ patients.Results: (1) Analysing TMJ morphologic symmetry, some measurements differed statistically although the mean diffe-rences were negligibly relative to their values. No statistically significant difference was found among the groups though group 4 showed the highest probability of condylar position asymmetry (65%). (2) Comparing group 1 with group 3, statistical difference was found in condylar position (χ2=6.936, P<0.05) instead of morphologic measurements. Anterior and concentric condylar position were more frequently observed in group 1, yet posterior position was more prevalent in group 3. (3) In groups 2, 3, and 4, statistically, group 2 had the deepest glenoid fossa depth (H2&4=10.517,P=0.002), biggest superior (LSD-t2&3=3.408, LSD-t2&4=5.369, P<0.001) and lateral (LSD-t2&3=2.767, LSD-t2&4=3.350, P=0.001) joint spaces, whereas group 4 showed the shortest condylar long axis diameter (H2&4=13.374, P<0.001), largest glenoid fossa vertical distance (LSD-t2&4=4.561, P<0.001, LSD-t3&4=2.713, P=0.007), smallest medial (LSD-t2&4=-4.083, P<0.001) and middle (LSD-t2&4=-4.201, P<0.001) joint spaces. The posterior condylar position proportion gradually increased from groups 2 to 3 to 4. Correlation analysis revealed ANB correlated with anterior joint space positively (r=0.270, P=0.037) and condylar long axis angle negatively (r=-0.296, P=0.022). FH-GoGn correlated with superior (r=-0.488, P<0.001), posterior (r= -0.272, P=0.035), mesial (r=-0.390, P=0.002), middle (r=-0.425, P=0.001), and lateral (r=-0.331, P=0.010) joint spaces, articular eminence inclination (r=-0.259, P=0.046), as well as condylar long axis diameter (r=-0.327, P=0.011) negatively, and glenoid fossa depth (r=0.370, P=0.004) positively. Conclusion: TMJ characteristics of skeletal class Ⅱ sagittal pattern mainly reflected in condylar position rather than morphology. TMJs of different vertical patterns differed more in joint spaces, position of condyle and glenoid fossa than in morphologic measurements. Vertical position of glenoid fossa and proportion of posterior condyle increased gradually from hypodivergent to hyperdivergent. Highest glenoid fossa position, maximum ratio of posterior positioned condyle, smallest joint spaces, shallowest glenoid fossa depth, and narrowest condylar long axis diameter were found in skeletal class Ⅱ high angle group, which means that patients with this facial type have considerable joint instable factors, and we should especially pay attention when orthodontic treatment is carried out on them.
| [1] | Bjork A. Facial growth in man, studied with the aid of metallic implants[J]. Acta Odontol Scand, 1955,13(1):9-34. |
| [2] | Copray JC, Dibbets JM, Kantomaa T. The role of condylar cartilage in the development of the temporomandibular joint[J]. Angle Orthod, 1988,58(4):369-380. |
| [3] | Weinberg LA. Correlation of temporomandibular dysfunction with radiographic findings[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 1972,28(5):519-539. |
| [4] | Ahn SJ, Lee SJ, Kim TW. Orthodontic effects on dentofacial morphology in women with bilateral TMJ disk displacement[J]. Angle Orthod, 2007,77(2):288-295. |
| [5] | McNamara JA Jr. Components of class Ⅱ malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age[J]. Angle Orthod, 1981,51(3):177-202. |
| [6] | Simmons 3rd HC, Oxford DE, Hill MD. The prevalence of skeletal Class Ⅱ patients found in a consecutive population presenting for TMD treatment compared to the national average[J]. J Tenn Dent Assoc, 2008,88(4):16-18. |
| [7] | Lin M, Xu Y, Wu H, et al. Comparative cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of temporomandibular joint position and morphology in female patients with skeletal class Ⅱ malocclusion[J]. J Int Med Res, 2019,48(2):0300060519892388. |
| [8] | Hasebe A, Yamaguchi T, Nakawaki T, et al. Comparison of condylar size among different anteroposterior and vertical skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography[J]. Angle Orthod, 2019,89(2):306-311. |
| [9] | Ma Q, Bimal P, Mei L, et al. Temporomandibular condylar morphology in diverse maxillary-mandibular skeletal patterns: A 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography study[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2018,149(7):589-598. |
| [10] | Pullinger A, Hollender L. Variation in condyle-fossa relationships according to different methods of evaluation in tomograms[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1986,62(6):719-727. |
| [11] | Ocak M, Sargon MF, Orhan K, et al. Evaluation of the anatomical measurements of the temporomandibular joint by cone-beam computed tomography[J]. Folia Morphol, 2019,78(1):174-181. |
| [12] | Tsiklakis K, Syriopoulos K, Stamatakis HC. Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2004,33(3):196-201. |
| [13] | Firetto MC, Abbinante A, Barbato E, et al. National guidelines for dental diagnostic imaging in the developmental age[J]. Radiol Med, 2019,124(9):887-916. |
| [14] | Bjork A. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: Longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method[J]. J Dent Res, 1963,42(1):400-411. |
| [15] | Lobo F, Tolentino ES, Iwaki LCV, et al. Imaginology tridimensional study of temporomandibular joint osseous components according to sagittal skeletal relationship, sex, and age[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2019,30(5):1462-1465. |
| [16] | Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J. Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians[J]. PLoS One, 2015,10(3):e0121682. |
| [17] | Coombs MC, She X, Brown T R, et al. Temporomandibular joint condyle-disc morphometric sexual dimorphisms independent of skull scaling[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019,77(11):2245-2257. |
| [18] | Weinberg LA. Role of condylar position in TMJ dysfunction-pain syndrome[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 1979,41(6):636-643. |
| [19] | 葛胜将. 不同骨性错牙合患者髁突形态及位置的CBCT研究[D]. 青岛: 青岛大学, 2015. |
| [20] | 韩晓利. 成年女性骨性Ⅱ错牙合不同垂直骨面型患者TMJ骨性结构特征的CBCT研究[D]. 天津: 天津医科大学, 2017. |
| [21] | 崔燕, 唐天琪, 刘琳. 不同矢状骨面型患者颞下颌关节形态特征锥形束CT研究[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2016,9(6):348-353. |
| [22] | Saccucci M, Polimeni A, Festa F, et al. Do skeletal cephalometric characteristics correlate with condylar volume, surface and shape? A 3D analysis[J]. Head Face Med, 2012,8:15. |
| [23] | Katayama K, Yamaguchi T, Sugiura M, et al. Evaluation of mandibular volume using cone-beam computed tomography and correlation with cephalometric values[J]. Angle Orthod, 2014,84(2):337-342. |
| [24] | Paknahad M, Shahidi S, Abbaszade H. Correlation between condylar position and different sagittal skeletal facial types[J]. J Orofac Orthop, 2016,77(5):350-356. |
| [25] | Nielsen IL. Vertical malocclusions: etiology, development, diagnosis and some aspects of treatment[J]. Angle Orthod, 1991,61(4):247-260. |
| [26] | Droel R, Isaacson RJ. Some relationships between the glenoid fossa position and various skeletal discrepancies[J]. Am J Orthod, 1972,61(1):64-78. |
| [27] | Costa EDD, Peyneau PD, Roque-Torres GD, et al. The relationship of articular eminence and mandibular fossa morphology to facial profile and gender determined by cone beam computed tomography[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2019,128(6):660-666. |
| [28] | Kurusu A, Horiuchi M, Soma K. Relationship between occlusal force and mandibular condyle morphology. Evaluated by limited cone-beam computed tomography[J]. Angle Orthod, 2009,79(6):1063-1069. |
| [29] | Burke G, Major P, Glover K, et al. Correlations between condylar characteristics and facial morphology in Class Ⅱ preadolescent patients[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1998,114(3):328-336. |
| [30] | 李晨. 不同垂直骨面型骨性Ⅱ类成年女性颞下颌关节骨性结构的三维分析[D]. 西安: 第四军医大学, 2016. |
| [31] | Goymen M, Gulec A. Effects of the vertical malocclusion types on the dimension of the mandibular condyle[J]. Turk J Orthod, 2017,30(4):106-109. |
| [32] | 车蓓, 张昊, 钱才梅, 等. 不同垂直骨面型安氏Ⅱ类1分类错牙合患者颞下颌关节三维形态结构的比较[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2014,49(7):399-402. |
| [33] | Celik S, Celikoglu M, Buyuk SK, et al. Mandibular vertical asymmetry in adult orthodontic patients with different vertical growth patterns: A cone beam computed tomography study[J]. Angle Orthod, 2016,86(2):271-277. |
| [34] | Kikuchi K, Takeuchi S, Tanaka E, et al. Association between condylar position, joint morphology and craniofacial morphology in orthodontic patients without temporomandibular joint disorders[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2003,30(11):1070-1075. |
| [35] | Paknahad M, Shahidi S. Association between condylar position and vertical skeletal craniofacial morphology: a cone beam computed tomography study[J]. Int Orthod, 2017,15(4):740-751. |
| [36] | Park IY, Kim JH, Park YH. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography based comparison of condylar position and morphology according to the vertical skeletal pattern[J]. Korean J Orthod, 2015,45(2):66-73. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
