青年人群正常颞下颌关节窝顶厚度CBCT测量分析

doi:10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2022.10.009

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的获得青年人群正常颞下颌关节窝顶厚度锥形束计算机体层摄影术(CBCT)测量值,为颞下颌关节强直导航手术进行关节窝成形提供理论支持。方法对132名青年志愿者264侧正常颞下颌关节行CBCT大视野扫描,利用图像处理软件进行三维重建后,在冠状视图和矢状视图中分别寻找并测量双侧颞下颌关节窝顶最薄处的骨质厚度,根据性别、侧别、年龄等分组进行统计学分析。结果冠状视图中,总人群的测量值为0.940(0.748,1.311)mm,男性的测量值为1.040(0.731,1.675)mm,女性的测量值为0.883(0.753,1.199)mm;矢状视图中,总人群的测量值为0.903(0.720,1.331)mm,男性的测量值为1.073(0.755,1.585)mm,女性的测量值为0.865(0.706,1.090)mm;每个个体获得四组关节窝顶厚度测量值;四组测量值在男性和女性分组之间对比,右侧冠状视图和矢状视图中,男性关节窝顶厚度大于女性,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而左侧男性和女性关节窝顶厚度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);所有个体左右双侧测量值对比,冠状视图中左侧关节窝顶厚度大于右侧,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而矢状视图中,左右侧关节窝顶厚度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);男性和女性样本中,关节窝顶的厚度测量值在不同年龄分组之间对比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论颞下颌关节强直导航手术进行关节窝成形时,对于双侧颞下颌关节强直患者来说,正常颞下颌关节窝顶的厚度测量值可用于临床参考。

关键词: 颞下颌关节强直, 导航外科手术, 关节窝成形, 关节窝顶厚度

Abstract: Objective To investigate glenoid fossa roof thickness of normal temporomandibular joint(TMJ) in Chinese young people by CBCT in order to provide theoretical guidance for fossa arthroplasty in computer aided navigation surgery of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. Methods One hundred and thirty-two volunteers (264 normal temporomandibular joints) were selected and underwent large field of view CBCT scans. After 3D reconstruction with image processing software, roof thickness at the thinnest part of mandibular glenoid fossa was identified and measured in both coronal and sagittal views and results were statistically analyzed according to gender, joint side and age. Results In the coronal view, measurements of volunteers were 0.940 (0.748,1.311) mm, 1.040 (0.731,1.675) mm for males, and 0.883 (0.753,1.199) mm for females. In the sagittal view, measurements of volunteers were 0.903 (0.720,1.331) mm, 1.073 (0.755,1.585) mm for males, and 0.865 (0.706,1.090) mm for females. Four sets of measurements of roof thickness of glenoid fossa were obtained from each individual. Comparison was conducted between males and females. In the right joint (P<0.05), roof thickness of glenoid fossa in both coronal and sagittal views was greater in males than females, and the difference was statistically significant; no significant difference found in the left joint (P>0.05). There were significant differences was found between two sides in coronal view in all individuals (P<0.05). Thickness of the left glenoid fossa roof was greater than the right, no difference between two sides in sagittal view (P>0.05). No significant difference was found between different age groups in both male and female samples (P>0.05). Conclusion In preoperative planning for temporomandibular joint ankylosis surgery using navigation system, measuring roof thickness of normal temporomandibular glenoid fossa for unilateral TMJ ankylosis is a significant reference in clinical practice.

Key words: temporomandibular joint ankylosis, navigation surgery, arthroplasty, thickness of glenoid fossa roof

中图分类号:

R782.6

王晓娜, 何东宁, 卢旭光, 贺洋. 青年人群正常颞下颌关节窝顶厚度CBCT测量分析[J]. 口腔医学, 2022, 42(10): 911-916.

WANG Xiaona, HE Dongning, LU Xuguang, HE Yang. Investigation of roof thickness of normal temporomandibular glenoid fossa in young people by CBCT[J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(10): 911-916.

参考文献

[1] Filho AML, Junior GMFG, Santos ES, et al. Treatment of dentofacial deformity associated with temporomandibular joint ankylosis through vertical and sagittal osteotomies of the mandibular ramus[J]. J Craniofacial Surg, 2021, 33(3):e305-e308.
[2] Gholami M, Labafchi A. Management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis using temporoparietal fascia flap[J]. World J Plast Surg, 2021, 10(2):93-97.
[3] Upadya VH, Bhat HK, Rao BHS, et al. Classification and surgical management of temporomandibular joint ankylosis:A review[J]. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021, 47(4):239-248.
[4] Dowgierd K, Pokrowiecki R, Kulesa Mrowiecka M, et al. Protocol for multi-stage treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis in children and adolescents[J]. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(2):428.
[5] Miyazaki R, Iwasaki A,Nakai FM, et al. Surgical navigation system for temporomandibular joint ankylosis in a child:A case report[J]. J Med Case Rep, 2021, 15:464.
[6] Abreu Silva ML,Henriques de Castro W, Baires Campos FE. Temporomandibular joint ankylosis surgery in children[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021, 79(2):473.e1-473.e7.
[7] Azarmehr I, Stokbro K, Bell RB, et al. Surgical navigation:A systematic review of indications, treatments, and outcomes in oral and maxillofacial surgery[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2017, 75(9):1987-2005.
[8] Alexiou K, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K. Evaluation of the severity of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritic changes related to age using cone beam computed tomography[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2009, 38(3):141-147.
[9] Honda K, Arai Y, Kashima M, et al. Evaluation of the usefulness of the limited cone-beam CT (3DX) in the assessment of the thickness of the roof of the glenoid Fossa of the temporomandibular joint[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2004, 33(6):391-395.
[10] Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom)[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2004, 33(5):291-294.
[11] Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, et al. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2008, 37(1):10-17.
[12] Kobayashi K,Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, et al. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2004, 19(2):228-231.
[13] Greene MW, Hackney FL,van Sickels JE. Arthroscopy of the temporomandibular joint:An anatomic perspective[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1989, 47(4):386-389.
[14] Honda K, Kawashima S, Kashima M, et al. Relationship between sex, age, and the minimum thickness of the roof of the glenoid Fossa in normal temporomandibular joints[J]. Clin Anat, 2005, 18(1):23-26.
[15] Khojastepour L, Haghnegahdar A, Eisazadeh M, et al. Compar-ison between glenoid Fossa roof thickness in TMD and non-TMD patients, a CBCT study[J]. J Dent (Shiraz), 2019, 20(3):165-170.
[16] Akay G, Karataş MS, Karadağ Ö, et al. Examination of the possible relation of the superior semicircular canal morphology with the roof thickness of the glenoid Fossa and bone changes of the temporomandibular joint[J]. Eur Arch Oto Rhino Laryngol, 2020, 277(12):3423-3430.
[17] Ejima K, Schulze D, Stippig A, et al. Relationship between the thickness of the roof of glenoid Fossa, condyle morphology and remaining teeth in asymptomatic European patients based on cone beam CT data sets[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2013, 42(3):90929410.
[18] İlgüy D, İlgüy M, Fişekçioğlu E, et al. Articular eminence inclination, height, and condyle morphology on cone beam computed tomography[J]. Sci World J, 2014, 2014:761714.
[19] Nithin 1, Ahmed J, Sujir N, et al. Morphological assessment of TMJ spaces, mandibular condyle, and glenoid Fossa using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT):A retrospective analysis[J]. Indian J Radiol Imaging, 2021, 31(1):78-85.
[20] Al-Koshab M, Nambiar P, John J. Assessment of condyle and glenoid Fossa morphology using CBCT in south-east asians[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(3):e0121682.
[21] Rodrigues AF,Fraga MR, Vitral RWF. Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in Class Ⅱ Division 1 and Class Ⅲ malocclusion patients:Condylar symmetry and condyle-Fossa relationship[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009, 136(2):199-206.
[22] Kijima N, Honda K, Kuroki Y, et al. Relationship between patient characteristics, mandibular head morphology and thickness of the roof of the glenoid Fossa in symptomatic temporomandibular joints[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2007, 36(5):277-281.
[23] Lobo F,Tolentino ES, Iwaki LCV, 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.
[24] Whyte J, Cisneros AI,Fraile JJ, et al. Interaction effect of tegmen tympani and superior semicircular canal statuses on the thickness of the roof of the glenoid Fossa:A cross-sectional descriptive study[J]. Surg Radiol Anat, 2020, 42(1):75-80.
[25] Soydan D, Doğan S, Canger EM, et al. Effect of internal derangements and degenerative bone changes on the minimum thickness of the roof of the glenoid Fossa in temporomandibular joint[J]. Oral Radiol, 2020, 36(1):25-31.
[26] Chandran R, Keeler GD, Christensen AM, et al. Application of virtual surgical planning for total joint reconstruction with a stock alloplast system[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011, 69(1):285-294.
[27] Zong CL, Shi YL, Jia JQ, et al. A retrospective study to compare the treatment outcomes with and without surgical navigation for fracture of the orbital wall[J]. Chin J Traumatol, 2021, 24(1):11-17.
[28] He Y, Huang T, Zhang Y, et al. Application of a computer-assisted surgical navigation system in temporomandibular joint ankylosis surgery:A retrospective study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2017, 46(2):189-197.
[29] Schmelzeisen R, Gellrich NC, Schramm A, et al. Navigation-guided resection of temporomandibular joint ankylosis promotes safety in skull base surgery[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2002, 60(11):1275-1283.