Comparison between Glenoid Fossa Roof Thickness in TMD and non-TMD Patients, a CBCT Study

Khojastepour, Leila; Haghnegahdar, Abdolaziz; Issazadeh, Maryam; Bahreini, Mahboobeh

doi:10.30476/dentjods.2019.44906

Comparison between Glenoid Fossa Roof Thickness in TMD and non-TMD Patients, a CBCT Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Leila Khojastepour ¹

Abdolaziz Haghnegahdar ¹

Maryam Issazadeh ²

Mahboobeh Bahreini ³

¹ Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran.

² Postgraduate Student, Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

³ Student Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.30476/dentjods.2019.44906

Abstract

Statement of the Problem:Various pathologic conditions can affect the thickness of the roof of glenoid fossa (RGF). The relationship between the RGF thickness and temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD) is not explicitly investigated. Considering the changes in RGF thickness, as a radiographic sign for TMD diagnosis, the phenomenon may necessitate specific treatment and may influence the treatment course and results.
Purpose:This research was designed to examine the relationship between TMD and RGF thickness changes compared to non-TMD group.
Materials and Method: In this cross sectional analytic research CBCT images of 70 TMD patients (140 joints) and 70 non-TMD individuals (140 joints) as control group were evaluated for thickness of RGF and presence of discontinuity in RGF. The distance between superior and inferior cortex of glenoid fossa was measured as RGF thickness. Inability to follow the course of cortex in any given image was considered as discontinuity. T-test, Chi-square and odds ratio (OR) were used for statistical analysis. In this study, p < 0.05 was considered meaningful.
Results:The mean thickness of RGF in our non-TMD samples was 1.12 mm. RGF thickness was significantly increased in TMD patients compared non-TMD group (p = 0.00). This value was also greater in males. On the other hand, TMD patient showed a higher incidence of discontinuity in RGF, in comparison with non-TMD patients (p = 0.006).
Conclusion: the increased thickness of RGF can be considered as a sign of TMD, which may help in diagnosis of TMD. It seems that there is a direct relationship between TMD and discontinuity of RGF.

Keywords

Roof of glenoid fossa

Cone beam computed tomography

Temporomandibular joint

Temporomandibular joint disorder

1. De Leeuw R, Klasser GD. Orofacial pain: guidelines for assessment, diagnosis, and management. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134: 171. [Google Scholar]

2. Barros Vde M, Seraidarian PI, Côrtes MI, de Paula LV. The impact of orofacial pain on the quality of life of patients with temporomandibulardisorder. J Orofac Pain. 2009; 23: 28–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Paknahad M, Shahidi S, Akhlaghian M, Abolvardi M. Is Mandibular Fossa Morphology and Articular Eminence Inclination Associated with Temporomandibular Dysfunction? . J Dent (Shiraz) 2016;17:134–141. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Sümbüllü MA, Cağlayan F, Akgül HM, Yilmaz AB. Radiological examination of the articular eminence morphology using cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41: 234–240. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Çağlayan F, Sümbüllü MA, Akgül HM. Associations between the articular eminence inclination and condylar bone changes, condylar movements, and condyle and fossa shapes. Oral Radiology. 2014; 30: 84–91. [Google Scholar]

6. Honda K, Kawashima S, Kashima M, Sawada K, Shinoda K, Sugisaki M. Relationship between sex, age, and the minimum thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa in normal temporomandibular joints. Clin Anat. 2005; 18: 23–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Ejima K, Schulze D, Stippig A, Matsumoto K, Rottke D, Honda K. Relationship between the thickness of the roof of glenoid fossa, condyle morphologyand remaining teeth in asymptomatic European patients based on cone beam CT data sets. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 42: 90929410. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Alorainy IA. Apparent discontinuity of the roof of the glenoid fossa on cone-beam computed tomography images of an asymptomatic temporomandibular joint. Oral Radiology. 2016; 32: 61–65. [Google Scholar]

9. Honda K, Larheim TA, Sano T, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K, Westesson PL. Thickening of the glenoid fossa in osteoarthritis of the temporomandibular joint. An autopsy study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001; 30: 10–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Honda K, Larheim TA, Bjornland T, Westesson PL. Increased thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa 10 years after diskectomy of the temporomandibular joint. In: Fuchihata H, editor. Oral and maxillofacial radiology today. 1th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2000. pp. 527–530. [Google Scholar]

11. Kijima N, Honda K, Kuroki Y, Sakabe J, Ejima K, Nakajima I. Relationship between patient characteristics, mandibular head morphology and thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa in symptomatic temporomandibular joints. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007; 36: 277–281. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Tsuruta A, Yamada K, Hanada K, Hosogai A, Tanaka R, Koyama J, et al. Thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa and condylar bone change: a CT study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003; 32: 217–221. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Matsumoto K, Honda K, Sawada K, Tomita T, Araki M, Kakehashi Y. The thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa in the temporomandibular joint: relationship to the MRI findings. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35: 357–364. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Barron RP, Kainulainen VT, Gusenbauer AW, Hollenberg R, Sàndor GK. Management of traumatic dislocation of the mandibular condyle into the middle cranial fossa. J Can Dent Assoc. 2002; 68: 676–680. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Kai Y, Matsumoto K, Ejima K, Araki M, Yonehara Y, Honda K. Evaluation of the usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of the thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa of the temporomandibular joint. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 112: 508–514. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Helkimo M. Studies on function and dysfunction of the masticatory system. II. Index for anamnestic and clinical dysfunction and occlusal state. Sven Tandlak Tidskr. 1974; 67: 101–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Glick M. Burket's Oral Medicine. 12th ed. People’s Medical Publishing: USA; 2015. pp. 289–290. [Google Scholar]

18. Ferreira LA, Grossmann E, Januzzi E, de Paula MV, Carvalho AC. Diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disorders: indication of imaging exams. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016; 82: 341–352. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Lewis EL, Dolwick MF, Abramowicz S, Reeder SL. Contemporary imaging of the temporomandibular joint. Dent Clin North Am. 2008; 52: 875–890. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Yale SH, Allison BD, Hauptfuehrer JD. An epidemiological assessment of mandibular condyle morphology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1966; 21: 169–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. da Fonseca GD. Experimental study on fractures of the mandibular condylar process (mandibularcondylar process fractures) Int J Oral Surg. 1974; 3: 89–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Dobbyn L, O'Shea C, McLoughlin P. Malignant (invasive) otitis externa involving the temporomandibular joint. J Laryngol Otol. 2005; 119: 61–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Mardinger O, Rosen D, Minkow B, Tulzinsky Z, Ophir D, Hirshberg A. Temporomandibular joint involvement in malignant external otitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003; 96: 398–403. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]