Three-dimensional quantitative assessment of surgical stability and condylar displacement changes after counterclockwise maxillomandibular advancement surgery: Effect of simultaneous articular disc repositioning.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we quantitatively assessed 3-dimensional condylar displacement during counterclockwise maxillomandibular advancement surgery (CMMA) with or without articular disc repositioning, focusing on surgical stability in the follow-up period. METHODS: The 79 patients treated with CMMA had cone-beam computed tomography scans taken before surgery, immediately after surgery, and, on average, 15 months postsurgery. We divided the 142 condyles into 3 groups: group 1 (n = 105), condyles of patients diagnosed with symptomatic presurgical temporomandibular joint articular disc displacement who had articular disc repositioning concomitantly with CMMA; group 2 (n = 23), condyles of patients with clinical verification of presurgical articular disc displacement who had only CMMA; and group 3 (n = 14), condyles of patients with healthy temporomandibular joints who had CMMA. Presurgical and postsurgical 3-dimensional models were superimposed using voxel-based registration on the cranial base. Three-dimensional cephalometrics and shape correspondence were applied to assess surgical and postsurgical displacement changes. RESULTS: Immediately after surgery, the condyles moved mostly backward and medially and experienced lateral yaw, medial roll, and upward pitch in the 3 groups. Condyles in group 1 showed downward displacement, whereas the condyles moved upward in groups 2 and 3 (P ≤0.001). Although condylar displacement changes occurred in the 3 groups, the overall surgical procedure appeared to be fairly stable, particularly for groups 1 and 3. Group 2 had the greatest amount of relapse (P ≤0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CMMA has been shown to be a stable procedure for patients with healthy temporomandibular joints and for those who had simultaneous articular disc repositioning surgery.

Comparison and reproducibility of 2 regions of reference for maxillary regional registration with cone-beam computed tomography.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to evaluate the differences between 2 regions of maxillary voxel-based registration and to test the reproducibility of the registration. METHODS: Three-dimensional models were built for before-treatment (T1) and after-treatment (T2) based on cone-beam computed tomography images from 16 growing subjects. Landmarks were labeled in all T2 models of the maxilla, and voxel-based registrations were performed independently by 2 observers at 2 times using 2 reference regions. The first region, the maxillary region, included the maxillary bone clipped inferiorly at the dentoalveolar processes, superiorly at the plane passing through the right and left orbitale points, laterally at the zygomatic processes through the orbitale point, and posteriorly at a plane passing through the distal surface of the second molars. In the second region, the palate and infrazygomatic region had different posterior and anterior limits (at the plane passing through the distal aspects of the first molars and the canines, respectively). The differences between the registration regions were measured by comparing the distances between corresponding landmarks in the T2 registered models and comparing the corresponding x, y, and z coordinates from corresponding landmarks. Statistical analysis of the differences between the T2 surface models was performed by evaluating the means and standard deviations of the distances between landmarks and by testing the agreement between coordinates from corresponding landmarks (intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman method). RESULTS: The means of the differences between landmarks from the palate and infrazygomatic region to the maxillary region 3-dimensional surface models at T2 for all regions of reference, times of registrations, and observer combinations were smaller than 0.5 mm. The intraclass correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman plots indicated adequate concordance. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 regions of regional maxillary registration showed similar results and adequate intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility values.

Cone beam computed tomography-based models versus multislice spiral computed tomography-based models for assessing condylar morphology.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively compare condylar morphology using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) virtual three-dimensional surface models. STUDY DESIGN: The sample consisted of secondary data analyses of CBCT and MSCT scans obtained for clinical purposes from 74 patients treated with condylar resection and prosthetic joint replacement. Three-dimensional surface models of 146 condyles were constructed from each scan modality. Across-subject models were approximated and voxel-based registration was performed between homologous CBCT and MSCT images, making it possible to create average CBCT- and MSCT-based condylar models. SPHARM-PDM software provided matching points on each corresponding model. ShapeAnalysisMANCOVA software assessed statistically significant differences between observers and imaging modalities. One-sample t-tests evaluated the null hypothesis that the mean differences between each CBCT- and MSCT-based model were not clinically significant (<.5 mm). Tests were conducted at a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: ShapeAnalysisMANCOVA showed no statistically significant difference between the average CBCT- and MSCT-based models (P > .68). During pairwise comparison, the mean difference observed was .406 mm (SD, .173). One sample t-test showed that mean differences between each set of paired CBCT- and MSCT-based models were not clinically significant (P = .411). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional surface models constructed from CBCT images are comparable to those derived from MSCT scans and may be considered reliable tools for assessing condylar morphology.