Temporomandibular Joint Anatomy Assessed by CBCT Images

Table 1

Data from the studies.

Authors	Year	Type of study	Number of TMJs	Sample	Title
Saccucci et al. [11]	2012	Observational study	188 TMJs	94 patients (46 females and 48 males; 15–30 years old)	Resultant rendering reconstructions of the left and right temporal mandibular joints (TMJs) were obtained. Subjects were then classified on the basis of ANB angle in three classes (I, II, III). The data of the different classes were compared.
Saccucci et al. [12]	2012	Observational study	400 TMJs	200 patients (15–30 years old, 95 males and 105 females)	The condylar volume, the area, and the morphological index (MI) were compared among class I, class II, and class III young adult subjects.
Huntjens et al. [13]	2008	Observational study	40 TMJs	20 patients (14 girls and six boys; mean age years)	Condylar asymmetry and a wide variety of condylar destruction patterns were observed in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis assessed by cone-beam computed tomography.
Zhang et al. [16]	2014	Cross-sectional study	42 TMJs	42 TMJs evaluated by 7 dentists	42 temporomandibular joints were scanned, respectively, with the CBCT units ProMax® 3D (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland) and DCT PRO (Vatech, Co., Ltd., Yongin-Si, Republic of Korea) at normal and high resolutions. Seven dentists evaluated all the test images.
Barghan et al.	2012	Review	/	/	Application of cone beam computed tomography for assessment of the temporomandibular joints.
Dos Anjos Pontual et al. [17]	2012	Observational study	638 TMJs	319 patients (250 women and 69 men, range 10–89 years old); Data from adult subjects were excluded	The differences in percentage of bone changes among the categories of mobility were compared (ipo, iper, normo, and based on mouth opening) and the right and left sides.
Alexiou et al. [3]	2009	Observational study	142 TMJs	71 patients (60 females and 11 males) (20–75 years old); Data from adult subjects were excluded	Evaluation of the severity of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritic changes related to age using cone beam computed tomography.
Farronato et al. [14]	2010	Observational study	60 TMJs	30 children (8–13 years old)	The mandible was isolated from other craniofacial structures; the whole mandibular volume and its components’ volumes (condyle, ramus, hemibody, and hemisymphysis on right side and on left side) were calculated.
L. Palomo and J.M. Palomo [18]	2009	Review	/	/	Cone beam CT for diagnosis and treatment planning in trauma cases.
Schlueter et al. [19]	2008	Cross-sectional study	50 condyles	/	Three linear three-dimensional measurements were made on each of the 50 condyles at 8 different Hounsfield unit (HU) windows. These measurements were compared with the anatomic truth.
Zhang et al. [20]	2016	Case-control study	20 TMJs	5 patients with facial asymmetry and 5 asymptomatic subjects, mean age, years	The TMJ spaces and condylar and ramus angles were assessed and compared between the groups.
Illipronti-Filho et al. [21]	2015	Observational study	40 TMJs	9 males (mean 7.9 years) and 11 females (mean 8.2 years)	Dimensional measurements of the condyles between the right and left sides and crossed and noncrossed sides in sagittal and coronal view were made.
Ikeda et al. [22]	2011	Observational study	24 TMJs	10 males, 12 females; range 12–25 years old	Joint-space distances between the condyle and glenoid fossa were measured at the medial, central, and lateral positions in the coronal plane and medial and lateral positions in the axial plane.