Analysis of condylar volume in relation to craniofacial morphology using cone beam computed tomography


  • Maryam Mostafavi Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dentistry faculty, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran.
  • Arman Saeedi Vahdat Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dentistry Faculty, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
  • Laleh Javadian Dentistry Faculty, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran.
  • Aisan Ghaznavi Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dentistry faculty, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran.



cone beam computed tomography, mandibular condyle, malocclusion, morphology


Objectives This study aimed at comparing the size and shape of mandibular condyle in mature adult population with different skeletal
Methods A total of 198 patients within the age range of 15–64 years, including 68 males and 130 females, were allocated into three groups
based on the ANB angle: skeletal classes I (n = 65), II (n = 69), and III (n = 64). The cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to
evaluate right and left temporomandibular joint (TMJ) in each patient. TMJ evaluation was comprised of size of condyle, area of condyle,
and morphology index. The Mimics software was used to calculate the size and area of the condyle. The size, area, and morphology index
were compared between the study groups using parametric tests.
Results Based on the results of paired t-test, there was a significant difference between the sizes of right and left condyles, in favor of the
right condyle (P = 0.02). In addition, the mean size of the condyle in class III subjects was higher than those of classes I and II; however, the
difference between the classes I and II was insignificant. The size and area of condyle were higher in males compared with females.
Conclusion Based on the results of this study, there might be a correlation between the facial skeletal morphology and area of condyle.


1. Saccucci M, Polimeni A, Festa F, Tecco S. Do skeletal cephalometric characteristics correlate with condylar volume, surface and shape? A 3D analysis. Head Face Med. 2012;8:15.
2. Gianelly AA, Petras JC, Boffa J. Condylar position and class II deepbite, no-overjet malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;96:428–432.
3. Widman DJ. Functional and morphologic considerations of the articular eminence. Angle Orthod. 1988;58:221–236.
4. Krisjane Z, Urtane I, Krumina G, Bieza A, Zepa K, Rogovska I. Condylar and mandibular morphological criteria in the 2D and 3D MSCT imaging for patients with Class II division 1 subdivision malocclusion. Stomatologija. 2007;9:67–71.
5. Krisjane Z, Urtane I, Krumina G, Zepa K. Three-dimensional evaluation of TMJ parameters in Class II and Class III patients. Stomatologija. 2009;11:32–36.
6. Larheim TA, Abrahamsson AK, Kristensen M, Arvidsson LZ. Temporomandibular joint diagnostics using CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;44:20140235.
7. Song Y, Zhang X, Gao Y, Hou F, Yu Y. The condylar morphology in adult females of skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion with various vertical skeletal features: a study by cone beam computed tomography. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9:8304–8311.
8. Saccucci M, D’Attilio M, Rodolfino D, Festa F, Polimeni A, Tecco S. Condylar volume and condylar surface in class I, class II and class III young adult subjects. Head Face Med. 2012;8:34.
9. Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J. Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0121682.
10. 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;128:337–346. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.05.024
11. 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;5:80–86.
12. Moss ML, Rankow RM. The role of the functional matrix in mandibular growth. Angle Orthod. 1968;38:95–103.
13. Enomoto A, Watahiki J, Yamaguchi T, Irie T, Tachikawa T, Maki K. Effects of mastication on mandibular growth evaluated by microcomputed tomography. Eur J Orthod. 2009;32:66–70.
14. Tecco S, Saccucci M, Nucera R, Polimeni A, Pagnoni M, Cordasco G, et al. Condylar volume and surface in Caucasian young adult subjects. BMC Med Imaging. 2010;10:28.
15. Gomes AF, Nejaim Y, Brasil DM, Groppo FC, Ferreira Caria PH, Haiter Neto F. Assessment of volume and height of the coronoid process in patients with different facial types and skeletal classes: a cone-beam computed tomography study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73:1395.e1–e5. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2015.02.020




How to Cite

Mostafavi, M., Saeedi Vahdat, A., Javadian, L., & Ghaznavi, A. (2018). Analysis of condylar volume in relation to craniofacial morphology using cone beam computed tomography. Journal of Contemporary Medical Sciences, 4(4), 202–206.