上海交通大学学报（医学版）

上海交通大学学报（医学版） >

2023 , Vol. 43 >Issue 5: 648 - 654

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2023.05.017

综述

不同矢状骨面型颞下颌关节形态的研究进展

  • 王思婕 ,
  • 斯佳萍 ,
  • 周宇 ,
  • 骆定雯 ,
  • 高璐 ,
  • 陈小燕
展开
  • 浙江大学医学院附属口腔医院口腔正畸科，浙江大学口腔医学院，浙江省口腔疾病临床医学研究中心，浙江省口腔生物医学研究重点实验室，浙江大学癌症研究院，杭州 310006
王思婕（1997—），女，住院医师，硕士；电子信箱：22018590@zju.edu.cn。
陈小燕，电子信箱：ortho_chenxy@zju.edu.cn。

收稿日期: 2023-01-13

  录用日期: 2023-03-18

  网络出版日期: 2023-07-11

基金资助

国家自然科学基金(82271008);中国牙病防治基金会科研项目(A2021-090)

收起

Progress in morphology of temporomandibular joints in different sagittal skeletal patterns

  • Sijie WANG ,
  • Jiaping SI ,
  • Yu ZHOU ,
  • Dingwen LUO ,
  • Lu GAO ,
  • Xiaoyan CHEN
Expand
  • Department of Orthodontics, Stomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310006, China
CHEN Xiaoyan, E-mail: ortho_chenxy@zju.edu.cn.

Received date: 2023-01-13

  Accepted date: 2023-03-18

  Online published: 2023-07-11

Supported by

National Natural Science Foundation of China(82271008);China Oral Health Foundation(A2021-090)

Fold

摘要

颞下颌关节作为口颌面部最重要的关节，其形态结构和生理功能对于正畸、修复及咬合重建、正颌治疗结果的长期稳定性具有重要意义。颞下颌关节的形态特征受到颅颌面解剖结构、矢状向和垂直向骨面型、牙列咬合与咀嚼肌功能等多因素的影响。近年来，由于口腔修复及正畸治疗理念和影像学技术的提升，探究不同矢状骨面型间颞下颌关节形态差异的研究日益增多，但结果存在一定差异，且缺乏归纳与总结，导致目前尚无统一定论。该文从关节窝及髁突的位置和形态方面分别归纳，对不同矢状骨面型与颞下颌关节形态之间的关系进行综述，分析各研究间的差异，以期进一步明确不同矢状骨面型与颞下颌关节形态特征之间的关系。

关键词： 颞下颌关节; 矢状骨面型; 错畸形; 髁突形态; 关节窝

本文引用格式

王思婕 , 斯佳萍 , 周宇 , 骆定雯 , 高璐 , 陈小燕 . 不同矢状骨面型颞下颌关节形态的研究进展[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2023 , 43(5) : 648 -654 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2023.05.017

Abstract

The temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is the most important oral-maxillo-facial joint. Its morphological structure and physiological function are of great significance on long-term stability of treatment results for orthodontics, prosthodontics, occlusal reconstruction, and orthognathic patients. The morphological characteristics of TMJ are affected by many factors, including the cranio-maxillo-facial anatomy, sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns, occlusion of dentition, and function of masticatory muscle. In recent years, due to the improvement of prosthodontic and orthodontic treatment concepts and imaging technology, studies on the distinction of TMJ morphology among different sagittal skeletal patterns have increased. However, there are some differences in the results, and there is a lack of review and summary, leading to no definite conclusions at present. This article aims to summarize the relationship between TMJ morphology and sagittal skeletal patterns from the view of position and morphology of the glenoid fossa and condyle, and analyze the differences among various studies, hoping to further clarify the relationship between different sagittal skeletal patterns and the TMJ morphological characteristics.

Key words： temporomandibular joint; sagittal skeletal patterns; skeletal malocclusion; condyle morphology; glenoid fossa

参考文献

1 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.
2 SCHIFFMAN E, OHRBACH R, TRUELOVE E, et al. Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for clinical and research applications: recommendations of the international RDC/TMD consortium network and orofacial pain special interest group[J]. J Oral Facial Pain Headache, 2014, 28(1): 6-27.
3 NICKEL J C, MCLACHLAN K R, SMITH D M. A theoretical model of loading and eminence development of the postnatal human temporomandibular joint[J]. J Dent Res, 1988, 67(6): 903-910.
4 KATSAVRIAS E G. Changes in articular eminence inclination during the craniofacial growth period[J]. Angle Orthod, 2002, 72(3): 258-264.
5 KARLO C A, STOLZMANN P, HABERNIG S, et al. Size, shape and age-related changes of the mandibular condyle during childhood[J]. Eur Radiol, 2010, 20(10): 2512-2517.
6 KATSAVRIAS E G, HALAZONETIS D J. Condyle and fossa shape in Class Ⅱ and Class Ⅲ skeletal patterns: a morphometric tomographic study[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2005, 128(3): 337-346.
7 赖文莉. 继发性软骨与原发性软骨[J]. 中华口腔正畸学杂志, 1999, 6(2): 35-37.
7 LAI W L. Secondary typecartilages and primary typecartilages[J]. Orthodontics, 1999, 6(2): 35-37.
8 彭秋萍, 伍军. 外源性因素影响髁突生长改建的研究进展[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2017, 35(6): 643-647.
8 PENG Q P, WU J. Research progress on the influence of exogenous factors on the growth and reconstruction of condyle[J]. HUAXI Journal of Stomatology, 2017, 35(6): 643-647.
9 何影, 李松. 髁突软骨与生长板软骨在发育中差异研究进展[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2009, 2(8): 498-501.
9 HE Y, LI S. Research progress on the developmental difference between condyle cartilage and growth plate cartilage[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Stomatology, 2009, 2(8): 498-501.
10 BACCETTI T, ANTONINI A, FRANCHI L, et al. Glenoid fossa position in different facial types: a cephalometric study[J]. Br J Orthod, 1997, 24(1): 55-59.
11 MENGI A, SHARMA V P, TANDON P, et al. A cephalometric evaluation of the effect of glenoid fossa location on craniofacial morphology[J]. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res, 2016, 6(3): 204-212.
12 COSTA H N, SLAVICEK R, SATO S. A computerized tomography study of the morphological interrelationship between the temporal bones and the craniofacial complex[J]. J Anat, 2012, 220(6): 544-554.
13 DE CLERCK H, NGUYEN T, DE PAULA L K, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of mandibular and glenoid fossa changes after bone-anchored Class Ⅲ intermaxillary traction[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2012, 142(1): 25-31.
14 NINDRA J, SIDHU M S, KOCHHAR A S, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of condyle-glenoid fossa complex following treatment with herbst appliance[J]. J Clin Med, 2021, 10(20): 4730.
15 LECORNU M, CEVIDANES L H, ZHU H, et al. Three-dimensional treatment outcomes in Class Ⅱ patients treated with the Herbst appliance: a pilot study[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2013, 144(6): 818-830.
16 DE MATTOS J M, PALOMO J M, DE OLIVEIRA RUELLAS A C, et al. Three-dimensional positional assessment of glenoid fossae and mandibular condyles in patients with Class Ⅱ subdivision malocclusion[J]. Angle Orthod, 2017, 87(6): 847-854.
17 HUANG M, HU Y, YU J, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of the temporomandibular joint and dental characteristics of patients with Class Ⅱ subdivision malocclusion and asymmetry[J]. Korean J Orthod, 2017, 47(5): 277-288.
18 GIUNTINI V, DE TOFFOL L, FRANCHI L, et al. Glenoid fossa position in Class Ⅱ malocclusion associated with mandibular retrusion[J]. Angle Orthod, 2008, 78(5): 808-812.
19 LOBO F, TOLENTINO E S, IWAKI L C V, 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.
20 KATSAVRIAS E G. Morphology of the temporomandibular joint in subjects with Class Ⅱ Division 2 malocclusions[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2006, 129(4): 470-478.
21 KATSAVRIAS E G. The growth of the length of the glenoid fossa[J]. Odont Proodos, 2000, 54:158-166.
22 OBERG T, CARLSSON G E, FAJERS C M. The temporomandibular joint. A morphologic study on a human autopsy material[J]. Acta Odontol Scand, 1971, 29(3): 349-384.
23 WRIGHT D M, MOFFETT B C. The postnatal development of the human temporomandibular joint[J]. Am J Anat, 1974, 141(2): 235-249.
24 SCOTT H J. Growth changes in the glenoid fossa[J]. Dental Pract, 1955, 6: 117-120.
25 GORUCU-COSKUNER H, CIGER S. Computed tomography assessment of temporomandibular joint position and dimensions in patients with class Ⅱ division 1 and division 2 malocclusions[J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2017, 9(3): e417-e423.
26 SONG J, CHENG M, QIAN Y, et al. Cone-beam CT evaluation of temporomandibular joint in permanent dentition according to Angle′s classification[J]. Oral Radiol, 2020, 36(3): 261-266.
27 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形束CT研究[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2016, 9(6): 348-353.
27 CUI Y, TANG T Q, LIU L. CBCT study of morphological characteristics of temporomandibular joint in patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Stomatology, 2016, 9(6): 348-353.
28 KANDASAMY S, GREENE C S, OBREZ A. An evidence-based evaluation of the concept of centric relation in the 21st century[J]. Quintessence Int, 2018, 49(9): 755-760.
29 KAUR A, NATT A S, MEHRA S K, et al. Improved visualization and assessment of condylar position in the glenoid fossa for different occlusions: a CBCT study[J]. Contemp Dent Pract, 2016, 17(8):679-686.
30 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.
31 ARIETA-MIRANDA J M, SILVA-VALENCIA M, FLORES-MIR C, et al. Spatial analysis of condyle position according to sagittal skeletal relationship, assessed by cone beam computed tomography[J]. Prog Orthod, 2013, 14: 36.
32 KRISJANE Z, URTANE I, KRUMINA G, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of TMJ parameters in Class Ⅱ and Class Ⅲ patients[J]. Stomatologija, 2009, 11(1): 32-36.
33 CHAE J M, PARK J H, TAI K, et al. Evaluation of condyle-fossa relationships in adolescents with various skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography[J]. Angle Orthod, 2020, 90(2): 224-232.
34 SACCUCCI M, D′ATTILIO M, RODOLFINO D, et al. Condylar volume and condylar area in class Ⅰ, class Ⅱ and class Ⅲ young adult subjects[J]. Head Face Med, 2012, 8: 34.
35 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.
36 GARCíA-DíAZ R, ARRIOLA-GUILLéN L E, ALIAGA-DEL CASTILLO A, et al. 2D-3D comparison of the temporomandibular joint in skeletal Class Ⅱ versus Class Ⅰ adults: a retrospective study[J]. Int Orthod, 2020, 18(4): 784-793.
37 SANTANDER P, QUAST A, OLBRISCH C, et al. Comprehensive 3D analysis of condylar morphology in adults with different skeletal patterns-a cross-sectional study[J]. Head Face Med, 2020, 16(1): 33.
38 NOH K J, BAIK H S, HAN S S, et al. Differences in mandibular condyle and glenoid fossa morphology in relation to vertical and sagittal skeletal patterns: a cone-beam computed tomography study[J]. Korean J Orthod, 2021, 51(2): 126-134.
39 IGUCHI R, YOSHIZAWA K, MOROI A, et al. Comparison of temporomandibular joint and ramus morphology between class Ⅱ and class Ⅲ cases before and after bi-maxillary osteotomy[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2017, 45(12): 2002-2009.
40 ANDERSON D, POPOVICH F. Relation of cranial base flexure to cranial form and mandibular position[J]. Am J Phys Anthropol, 1983, 61(2): 181-187.
41 AL MAAITAH E F, ALOMARI S, AL-KHATEEB S N, et al. Cranial base measurements in different anteroposterior skeletal relationships using Bjork-Jarabak analysis[J]. Angle Orthod, 2022, 92(5):613-618.
42 TANER L, GüRSOY G M, UZUNER F D. Does gender have an effect on craniofacial measurements?[J]. Turk J Orthod, 2019, 32(2): 59-64.
43 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, 2020, 48(2): 300060519892388.
44 AL-HADAD S A, ALYAFRUSEE E S, ABDULQADER A A, et al. Comprehensive three-dimensional positional and morphological assessment of the temporomandibular joint in skeletal Class Ⅱ patients with mandibular retrognathism in different vertical skeletal patterns[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2022, 22(1): 149.
45 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.
46 GANUGAPANTA V R, PONNADA S R, GADDAM K P, et al. Computed tomographic evaluation of condylar symmetry and condyle-fossa relationship of the temporomandibular joint in subjects with normal occlusion and malocclusion: a comparative study[J]. J Clin Diagn Res, 2017, 11(2): ZC29-ZC33.
47 BARRERA-MORA J M, ESCALONA E E, LABRUZZI C A, et al. The relationship between malocclusion, benign joint hypermobility syndrome, condylar position and TMD symptoms[J]. CRANIO, 2012, 30(2): 121-130.
48 PAKNAHAD M, SHAHIDI S. Association between mandibular condylar position and clinical dysfunction index[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2015, 43(4): 432-436.
49 TALAAT W, AL BAYATTI S, AL KAWAS S. CBCT analysis of bony changes associated with temporomandibular disorders[J]. CRANIO, 2016, 34(2): 88-94.
50 SHOKRI A, ZARCH H H, HAFEZMALEKI F, et al. Comparative assessment of condylar position in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and asymptomatic patients using cone-beam computed tomography[J]. Dent Med Probl, 2019, 56(1): 81-87.
51 MA J, WANG J, HUANG D, et al. A comparative study of condyle position in temporomandibular disorder patients with chewing side preference using cone-beam computed tomography[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2022, 49(2): 265-271.
52 YANG I H, MOON B S, LEE S P, et al. Skeletal differences in patients with temporomandibular joint disc displacement according to sagittal jaw relationship[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 70(5): e349-e360.
53 MANFREDINI D, SEGù M, ARVEDA N, et al. Temporomandibular joint disorders in patients with different facial morphology. A systematic review of the literature[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2016, 74(1): 29-46.
54 UEKI K, NAKAGAWA K, TAKATSUKA S, et al. Temporomandibular joint morphology and disc position in skeletal class Ⅲ patients[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2000, 28(6): 362-368.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉