Influence of Angle’s classification and condylotrack distance on sagittal condylar inclination in a group of Thais

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Nov 22, 2018
Keywords:
Sagittal condylar inclination, Angle’s classification, Condylotrack distance, Side, Axiograph, Ethnic

Main Article Content

Porntida Visuttiwattanakorn
คณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล
Pitichamai Pirompug
Kallaya Suputtamongkol

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to investigate the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) in a Thai ethnic group and to evaluate the influence of Angle’s classifications, sides and condylotrack distance on the SCI.


Materials and Methods:  Seventy Thai participants, ages ranging between 20-42 years old, were allocated into 2 groups according to Angle’s classification, i.e., Class I (35 persons) and Class II (35 persons). The mandibular movements from a minimum to the maximum opening and excursion of the mouth were recorded using the computerized axiograph. Three SCI values at 1, 2 and 3 mm of protrusive condylar path from the hinge axis (condylotrack distance) were obtained from the graphic record of the mandibular movement. The statistical analysis of SCI according to the Angle’s classification was performed using the independent samples t-test at α= .05. The difference between right and left sides were analyzed using a dependent samples t-test. The statistical analysis for the condylotrack distance was performed by a repeated measured ANOVA at α= .05.


Results: The mean SCI of 70 Thai people was 44.7±8.8 degrees independent of any factors. There was no statistically significant difference between the SCI values obtained from Angle’s classification I and II. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed for the left and right sides. For a condylotrack distance parameter, the mean SCI at 1 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm were 45.7±10.6, 44.8±8.6 and 43.7±7.9 degrees respectively. The SCI at 3 mm condylotrack distance were significantly lower than those of 1 mm and 2 mm condylotrack distance.


Conclusions: SCI values were statistically different related to the condylotrack distance. There was no significant difference in SCI between Angle’s classification I and II group and between left and right side.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Visuttiwattanakorn P, Pirompug P, Suputtamongkol K. Influence of Angle’s classification and condylotrack distance on sagittal condylar inclination in a group of Thais. M Dent J [Internet]. 2018 Nov. 22 [cited 2024 Apr. 19];38(3):239-48. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/mdentjournal/article/view/179115
Issue
Vol. 38 No. 3 (2018): September-December
Section
Original articles

References

1. Levin B. A reevaluation of Hanau's Laws of Articulation and the Hanau Quint. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 39: 254-8.
2. dos Santos J, Jr., Nelson S, Nowlin T. Comparison of condylar guidance setting obtained from a wax record versus an extraoral tracing: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 54-9.
3. The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117: e1-e105.
4. Trapozzano VR. Law of articulation. J Prosthet Dent 1963; 13: 34-44.
5. Katsavrias EG. Changes in articular eminence inclination during the craniofacial growth period. Angle Orthod 2002; 72: 258-64.
6. Blumenfeld J. Racial identification in the skull and teeth. Totem: Univ West Ont J Anthropol 2003; 8: 20-33.
7. Durbar US. Racial Variations in Different Skulls. J Pharm Sci & Res 2014; 6: 370-2.
8. Ishwarkumar S, Pillay P, DeGama BZ, Satyapal KS. An Osteometric Evaluation of the Mandibular Condyle in a Black KwaZulu-Natal Population. Int J Morphol 2016; 34: 848-53.
9. Hinton RJ. Relationships between mandibular joint size and craniofacial size in human groups. Arch Oral Biol 1983; 28: 37-43.
10. Ricketts R M RRH, Chaconas S J, Schulhof R J, Engel G A. Orthodontic diagnosis and planning. Rocky Mountain Data Systems 1982: 194-200.
11. Wistar C. A System of Anatomy for the Use of Students of Medicine. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Copowerthwait & co; 1839.
12. Wu J, Hagg U, Rabie AB. Chinese norms of McNamara's cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 12-20.
13. Fletcher AM. Ethnic variations in sagittal condylar guidance angles. J Dent 1985; 13: 304-10.
14. Christensen LV, Slabbert JC. The concept of the sagittal condylar guidance: biological fact or fallacy? J Oral Rehabil 1978; 5: 1-7.
15. Ishibashi H, Takenoshita Y, Ishibashi K, Oka M. Age-related changes in the human mandibular condyle: a morphologic, radiologic, and histologic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 53: 1016-23; discussion 23-4.
16. Mongini F. Condylar remodeling after occlusal therapy. J Prosthet Dent 1980; 43: 568-77.
17. Heiser W, Stainer M, Reichegger H, Niederwanger A, Kulmer S. Axiographic findings in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with and without premolar extractions. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 427-33.
18. Ozkan H, Kucukkeles N. Condylar pathway changes following different treatment modalities. Eur J Orthod 2003; 25: 477-84.
19. Wu CK, Hsu JT, Shen YW, Chen JH, Shen WC, Fuh LJ. Assessments of inclinations of the mandibular fossa by computed tomography in an Asian population. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 443-50.
20. Bernhardt O, Kuppers N, Rosin M, Meyer G. Comparative tests of arbitrary and kinematic transverse horizontal axis recordings of mandibular movements. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 175-9.
21. Chang WS, Romberg E, Driscoll CF, Tabacco MJ. An in vitro evaluation of the reliability and validity of an electronic pantograph by testing with five different articulators. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92: 83-9.
22. Widman DJ. Functional and morphologic considerations of the articular eminence. Angle Orthod 1988; 58: 221-36.
23. Motoyoshi M, Inoue K, Kiuchi K, Ohya M, Nakajima A, Aramoto T, et al. Relationships of condylar path angle with malocclusion and temporomandibular joint disturbances. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent 1993; 35: 43-8.
24. Santos PF. Correlation between sagittal dental classes and sagittal condylar inclination. Int J Stomatol Occl Med 2013; 6: 96-100.
25. Stamm T, Vehring A, Ehmer U, Bollmann F. Computer-aided axiography of asymptomatic individuals with Class II/2. J Orofac Orthop 1998; 59: 237-45.
26. Canning T, O'Connell BC, Houston F, O'Sullivan M. The effect of skeletal pattern on determining articulator settings for prosthodontic rehabilitation: an in vivo study. Int J Prosthodont 2011; 24: 16-25.
27. Darendeliler N, Dincer M, Soylu R. The biomechanical relationship between incisor and condylar guidances in deep bite and normal cases. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31: 430-7.
28. Katsavrias EG, Halazonetis DJ. Condyle and fossa shape in Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: a morphometric tomographic study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 128: 337-46.
29. Zimmer B, Jager A, Kubein-Meesenburg D. Comparison of 'normal' TMJ-function in Class I, II, and III individuals. Eur J Orthod 1991; 13: 27-34.
30. Anders C, Harzer W, Eckardt L. Axiographic evaluation of mandibular mobility in children with angle Class-II/2 malocclusion (deep overbite). J Orofac Orthop 2000; 61: 45-53.
31. Reicheneder C, Gedrange T, Baumert U, Faltermeier A, Proff P. Variations in the inclination of the condylar path in children and adults. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 958-63.
32. Ichikawa W, Laskin DM. Anatomic study of the angulation of the lateral and midpoint inclined planes of the articular eminence. Cranio 1989; 7: 22-6.
33. Jasinevicius TR, Pyle MA, Lalumandier JA, Nelson S, Kohrs KJ, Sawyer DR. The angle of the articular eminence in modern dentate African-Americans and European-Americans. Cranio 2005; 23: 249-56.
34. Zamacona JM, Otaduy E, Aranda E. Study of the sagittal condylar path in edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 314-7.
35. Cimic S, Simunkovic SK, Badel T, Dulcic N, Alajbeg I, Catic A. Measurements of the sagittal condylar inclination: intraindividual variations. Cranio 2014; 32: 104-9.
36. Rosenstiel SF. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. Fifth edition ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Inc; 2016.
37. Alshali RZ, Yar R, Barclay C, Satterthwaite JD. Sagittal condylar angle and gender differences. J Prosthodont 2013; 22: 561-5.
38. Baqaien MA, Barra J, Muessig D. Computerized axiographic evaluation of the changes in sagittal condylar path inclination with dental and physical development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 88-94.
39. Payne JA. Condylar determinants in a patient population: electronic pantograph assessment. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 157-63.
40. Cohlmia JT, Ghosh J, Sinha PK, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Tomographic assessment of temporomandibular joints in patients with malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1996; 66: 27-35.
41. Hobo S, Shillingburg HT, Jr., Whitsett LD. Articulator selection for restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1976; 36: 35-43.
42. Price RB, Kolling JN, Clayton JA. Effects of changes in articulator settings on generated occlusal tracings. Part II: Immediate side shift, intercondylar distance, and rear and top wall settings. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65: 377-82.