Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(03): 523-532
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722483
Original Article

The Short-Term Effect of Active Skeletonized Sutural Distractor Appliance on Temporomandibular Joint Morphology of Class III Malocclusion Subjects

Mohamed Zahoor Ul Huqh
1   Orthodontic Unit, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Malaysia
,
Rozita Hassan
1   Orthodontic Unit, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Malaysia
,
Roselinda Abdul Rahman
2   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Malaysia
,
Asilah Yusof
3   Department of Oral Biology, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Malaysia
,
Ida Bagus Narmada
4   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
Wan Muhamad Amir W Ahmad
5   Department of Biostatistics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Malaysia
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by Research University Individual (RUI) Grant (no: 1001/PPSG/8012277) of the Universiti Sains Malaysia.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term effect of active skeletonized sutural distractor (ASSD) appliance on temporomandibular joint morphology of class III malocclusion subjects.

Materials and Methods This was a prospective interventional study. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) images of 22 patients were taken before and after treatment by using Planmeca Promax 3D CBCT machine version 2.9.2 (Planmeca OY Helsinki, Finland). The condylar width, height, length, roof of glenoid fossa thickness, and all joint spaces were measured. The condylar position was determined based on Pullinger and Hollander formula. The condylar shape was determined as per Kinzinger et al. The condylar volume was calculated by using Mimics software (Materialize, Belgium).

Statistical Analysis Data analysis was performed by using SPSS software version 24. Wilcoxon paired signed-rank test was used to compare the difference in temporomandibular joint morphology and condylar volume between pre- and post-treatment measurements. Chi-square test was used to compare the condylar position and shape.

Results The superior (p = 0.000 on the right side, p = 0.005 on the left side) and posterior joint spaces (p = 0.000 on both sides) were decreased after the treatment, respectively. The condyles were rotated upward and backward, thereby increasing the anterior joint spaces (p = 0.000 on both sides) after the treatment. The condylar volume increases after treatment, but no significant differences were observed (p = 0.903 on the right side, p = 0.062 on the left side).

Conclusion The significant changes were observed in joint spaces. The condyles were more anteriorly placed before treatment. Condylar position and shape alter in response to ASSD treatment. The condylar volume did not show any significant change.

Keywords

class III malocclusion - temporomandibular joint morphology - orthodontic treatment - fixed appliance - cone-beam computed tomography


Publication History

Article published online:
23 February 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Elfseyie M, Hassan M, Mohammed N, Al-Jaf A. Prevalence of malocclusion and occlusal traits of Malay adults (18–23 years) in Shah Alam, Malaysia. J Dent 2020; 81-86
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Soh J, Sandham A, Chan YH. Occlusal status in Asian male adults: prevalence and ethnic variation. Angle Orthod 2005; 75 (05) 814-820
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sami al Jahmi RH, Roselinda AY. Prevalence and comparison of craniofacial morphology of class I, class II and class III malocclusions in kota bharu population. Thesis: Universiti Sains Malaysia 2019
  • 4 Behbehani F, Artun J, Al-Jame B, Kerosuo H. Prevalence and severity of malocclusion in adolescent Kuwaitis. Med Princ Pract 2005; 14 (06) 390-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 El-Mangoury NH, Mostafa YA. Epidemiologic panorama of dental occlusion. Angle Orthod 1990; 60 (03) 207-214
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gelgör IE, Karaman AI, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in central anatolia. Eur J Dent 2007; 1 (03) 125-131
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Perillo L, Masucci C, Ferro F, Apicella D, Baccetti T. Prevalence of orthodontic treatment need in southern Italian schoolchildren. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32 (01) 49-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sidlauskas A, Lopatiene K. The prevalence of malocclusion among 7-15-year-old Lithuanian schoolchildren. Medicina (Kaunas) 2009; 45 (02) 147-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Otuyemi OD, Abidoye RO. Malocclusion in 12-year-old suburban and rural Nigerian children. Community Dent Health 1993; 10 (04) 375-380
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rwakatema DS, Nganga PM, Kemoli AM. Prevalence of malocclusion among 12-15-year-olds in Moshi, Tanzania, using Bjork’s criteria. East Afr Med J 2006; 83 (07) 372-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hardy D. Prevalence of angle class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open J Epidemiol 2012; 02: 75-82
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zere E, Chaudhari PK, Sharan J, Dhingra K, Tiwari N. Developing Class III malocclusions: challenges and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2018; 10: 99-116
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Azamian Z, Shirban F. Treatment options for class III malocclusion in growing patients with emphasis on maxillary protraction. Scientifica (Cairo) 2016; 2016: 8105163
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Steinberg B, Padwa BL, Boyne P, Kaban L. State of the art in oral and maxillofacial surgery: treatment of maxillary hypoplasia and anterior palatal and alveolar clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1999; 36 (04) 283-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ahn Y-S, Kim S-G, Baik S-M. et al. Comparative study between resorbable and nonresorbable plates in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68 (02) 287-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Al-Rawi NH, Uthman AT, Sodeify SM. Spatial analysis of mandibular condyles in patients with temporomandibular disorders and normal controls using cone beam computed tomography. Eur J Dent 2017; 11 (01) 99-105
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Krisjane Z, Urtane I, Krumina G, Zepa K. Three-dimensional evaluation of TMJ parameters in Class II and Class III patients. Stomatologija 2009; 11 (01) 32-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Katsavrias EG. Morphology of the temporomandibular joint in subjects with Class II Division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129 (04) 470-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Katayama K, Yamaguchi T, Sugiura M, Haga S, Maki K. Evaluation of mandibular volume using cone-beam computed tomography and correlation with cephalometric values. Angle Orthod 2014; 84 (02) 337-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37 (2-4) 1-332
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J. Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians. PLoS One 2015; 10 (03) e0121682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pullinger AG, Solberg WK, Hollender L, Guichet D. Tomographic analysis of mandibular condyle position in diagnostic subgroups of temporomandibular disorders. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 55 (06) 723-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kinzinger G, Kober C, Diedrich P. Topography and morphology of the mandibular condyle during fixed functional orthopedic treatment –a magnetic resonance imaging study. J Orofac Orthop 2007; 68 (02) 124-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. CRC Press 1990
  • 25 Hegde S, Praveen B, Shetty S. Morphological and radiological variations of mandibular condyles in health and diseases: a systematic review. J Dent 2013; 3 (01) 154
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara Jr JA. The Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) Method for the Assessment of Optimal Treatment Timing in Dentofacial Orthopedics. Elsevier 2005: 119-129
  • 27 Al-Mozany S. Treatment of Class III malocclusions using temporary anchorage devices (TADs) the Alt RAMEC protocol and inermaxillary Class III elastics in the growing patient. Available at: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/7925/Treatment%20of%20Class%20III%20malocclusions%20using%20Temporary%20Anchorage.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y. Accessed 2011
  • 28 Ozzeybek FS Can, Turkkahraman H. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy on the soft tissue profiles of class III patients at different growth stages. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (02) 143-149
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ghoussoub MS, Rifai K, Garcia R, Sleilaty G. Effect of rapid maxillary expansion on glenoid fossa and condyle-fossa relationship in growing patients (MEGP): study protocol for a controlled clinical trial. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018; 8 (02) 130-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lin L, Ahn H-W, Kim S-J, Moon S-C, Kim S-H, Nelson G. Tooth-borne vs bone-borne rapid maxillary expanders in late adolescence. Angle Orthod 2015; 85 (02) 253-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kurt H, Alioğlu C, Karayazgan B, Tuncer N, Kılıçoğlu H. The effects of two methods of Class III malocclusion treatment on temporomandibular disorders. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33 (06) 636-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Masucci C, Franchi L, Giuntini V, Defraia E. Short-term effects of a modified Alt-RAMEC protocol for early treatment of Class III malocclusion: a controlled study. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014; 17 (04) 259-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lee H, Son W-S, Kwak C. et al. Three-dimensional changes in the temporomandibular joint after maxillary protraction in children with skeletal Class III malocclusion. J Oral Sci 2016; 58 (04) 501-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Uzuner FD, Odabasi H, Acar S, Tortop T, Darendeliler N. Evaluation of the effects of modified bonded rapid maxillary expansion on occlusal force distribution: a pilot study. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (01) 103-108
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Liou EJ, Tsai WC. A new protocol for maxillary protraction in cleft patients: repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 42 (02) 121-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kaya D, Kocadereli I, Kan B, Tasar F. Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions: a pilot study. Angle Orthod 2011; 81 (04) 639-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ngan P, Moon W. Evolution of Class III treatment in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 148 (01) 22-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Al-Mozany SA, Dalci O, Almuzian M, Gonzalez C, Tarraf NE, Ali Darendeliler M. A novel method for treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing patients. Prog Orthod 2017; 18 (01) 40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Alhammadi MS, Fayed MS, Labib A. Three-dimensional assessment of temporomandibular joints in skeletal Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusions: cone beam computed tomography analysis. J World Fed Orthod 2016; 5 (03) 80-86
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 40 El H, Ciger S. Effects of 2 types of facemasks on condylar position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (06) 801-808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Vandeput A-S, Verhelst P-J, Jacobs R, Shaheen E, Swennen G, Politis C. Condylar changes after orthognathic surgery for class III dentofacial deformity: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 48 (02) 193-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ha MH, Kim YI, Park SB, Kim SS, Son WS. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation osteotomy and rigid fixation. Korean J Orthod 2013; 43 (06) 263-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Park SB, Yang YM, Kim YI, Cho BH, Jung YH, Hwang DS. Effect of bimaxillary surgery on adaptive condylar head remodeling: metric analysis and image interpretation using cone-beam computed tomography volume superimposition. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70 (08) 1951-1959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Peltola JS, Nyström M, Könönen M, Wolf J. Radiographic structural findings in the mandibular condyles of young individuals receiving orthodontic treatment. Acta Odontol Scand 1995; 53 (02) 85-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Merigue LF, Conti ACdCF, Oltramari-Navarro PVP, Navarro RdL, Almeida MRd. Tomographic evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in malocclusion subjects. condylar morphology and position. Braz Oral Res 2016;30(1)
  • 46 Rawlani S, Bhowate R, Kashikar S, Khubchandani M, Rawlani S, Chandak R. Morphological evaluation of temporo-mandibular joint in indian population. Braz Dent Sci 2018; 21 (01) 44-53
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Karlo CA, Stolzmann P, Habernig S, Müller L, Saurenmann T, Kellenberger CJ. Size, shape and age-related changes of the mandibular condyle during childhood. Eur Radiol 2010; 20 (10) 2512-2517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar