Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2017, vol. 54, nr 4, October-December, p. 347–351

doi: 10.17219/dmp/79255

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

An evaluation of the relationship between the range of mandibular opening and the condyle positions in functional panoramic radiographs

Ocena związku między zakresem opuszczania żuchwy a pozycjami wyrostków kłykciowych na czynnościowych zdjęciach pantomograficznych

Jolanta E. Loster1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Magdalena Groch1,A,C,D,F, Aneta Wieczorek1,A,B,C,E,F, Małgorzata Muzalewska2,B,C,F, Wojciech Skarka2,A,B,C,E,F

1 Department of Dental Prosthetics, Institute of Dentistry, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

2 Institute of Fundamentals of Machinery Design, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland


Background. Radiographic diagnostics in dentistry is one additional examination which facilitates an accurate clinical diagnosis and, as a result, the initiation of appropriate treatment. Despite various limitations, functional panoramic radiograph (OPG) images of the temporomandibular joints (TMJ) provide a great deal of valuable information and seem to be the first-choice modality in the diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate any relationship between the range of mouth opening and the condyle positions during this movement, on the basis of functional OPG images.
Material and Methods. To evaluate the distance between the condyle positions, 10 functional OPG images of the TMJ were used. The relationship between the measurements taken during clinical examination of the patients and the measurements obtained from functional OPG images were evaluated. The research hypothesis assumed that there was a positive correlation between the clinical range of mouth opening and the measurement of condyle movement from a centric occlusion position to its maximum opening.
Results. The analysis of measurements showed no statistical correlation between the distances between the condyle positions obtained from radiographic images and clinical measurements of the range of mouth opening.
Conclusion. In young, healthy patients without clinical symptoms of TMJ dysfunction, functional OPG images of the joint should not be compared with the range of mandibular opening.

Key words

temporomandibular joint, X-ray images, condylar pathway

Słowa kluczowe

staw skroniowo-żuchwowy, zdjęcia rentgenowskie, droga stawowa

References (20)

  1. Clinical impact of radiological examinations of patients with suspected temporomandibular disorders. Swed Dent J. 2002;26:67–74.
  2. Larheim TA. Current trends in temporomandibular joint imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995;80:555–576.
  3. Loster JE, Williams S, Wieczorek A, Loster BW. The polish face in profile: A cephalometric baseline study. Head Face Med. 2015;11:5.
  4. Osiewicz MA, Lobbezoo F, Loster BW, Loster JE, Manfredini D. Frequency of temporomandibular disorders diagnoses based on RDC/TMD in a Polish patient population. Cranio. 2017;1–7.
  5. Winocur E, Reiter S, Krichmer M, Kaffe I. Classifying degenerative joint disease by the RDC/TMD and by panoramic imaging: A retrospective analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37:171–177.
  6. Wieczorek A, Loster J, Majewski S. Assessment of suitability of orthopantomographs in dental diagnostics of temporomandibular joints. J Stoma. 2012;65:845–854.
  7. Dworkin SF, LeResche L. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomandib Disord. 1992;6:301–355.
  8. Loster JE, Wieczorek A, Ryniewicz WI. Condylar guidance angles obtained from panoramic radiographic images: An evaluation of their reproducibility. Dent Med Probl. 2017;54:35–40.
  9. Boeddinghaus R, Whyte A. Current concepts in maxillofacial imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2008;66:396–418.
  10. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88–94.
  11. Honey OB, Scarfe WC, Hilgers MJ, et al. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the temporomandibular joint: Comparisons with panoramic radiology and linear tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:429–438.
  12. Loster JE, Osiewicz MA, Groch M, Ryniewicz W, Wieczorek A. The prevalence of TMD in polish young adults. J Prosthodont. 2017;26:284–288.
  13. Osiewicz MA, Lobbezoo F, Loster BW, Wilkosz M, Naeije M, Ohrbach R. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD) – the polish version of a dual-axis system for the diagnosis of TMD. RDC/TMD form. J Stoma. 2013;66:576–649.
  14. Ahn SJ, Kim TW, Lee DY, Nahm DS. Evaluation of internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint by panoramic radiographs compared with magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:479–485.
  15. Sadat-Khonsari R, Fenske C, Behfar L, Bauss O. Panoramic radiography: Effects of head alignment on the vertical dimension of the mandibular ramus and condyle region. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:164–169.
  16. Raustia AM, Pyhtinen J. Morphology of the condyles and mandibular fossa as seen by computed tomography. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;63:77–82.
  17. Gedrange T, Gredes T, Hietschold V, et al. Comparison of reference points in different methods of temporomandibular joint imaging. Adv Med Sci. 2012;57:157–162.
  18. Hilgers ML, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:803–811.
  19. Barghan S, Tetradis S, Mallya S. Application of cone beam computed tomography for assessment of the temporomandibular joints. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(Suppl. 1):109–118.
  20. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94:10–92.