La estructura

Study Improvements and Future Discussion

In this study, there was a wide range of ages (growing vs non-growing patients) and treatment modalities. There were also some image resolution and grayscale

differences between the NewTom 3G and 5G units. Some improvements could be addressed in another study to increase the overall clinical significance.

Shape and morphology of the condyle varied greatly from patient to patient and from right to left side. In this study it was difficult maintaining a systematic and uniform method of determining the most distal and mesial of the condyle, which contributed to reducing the reliability of the ICC measurements. In retrospect, using a thicker CBCT slice in the condyle volume would have reduced the variability of the ICC measurements.

Another method of increasing clinical significance would be to limit the study to an all growing or all non-growing population that utilized a common modality of

treatment. This would allow the examiner to more readily and reliably make predictions about joint position and morphological changes.

This was a quantitative study, which was useful in obtaining hard data.

Superimpositions of the TMJ complex would increase the studies usefulness and visual components, while creating a qualitative representation.

Another interesting corollary would be to include an MRI study on each patient to better appreciate what is happening to the TM disc in this group of patients when

As more studies are accomplished using the newer technologies available, a new understanding could be achieved in relating orthodontic movements with any negative or positive sequelae in joint positions. This could allow clinicians to achieve a more

REFERENCES

1. Rendell, J.K., Norton, L.A. Gay, T. Orthodontic treatment and temporomandibular joint disorders. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 101, 84–87

2. Wyatt, W.E. Preventing adverse effects on the temporomandibular joint through orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987; 91, 493-499. 3. http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/TMJ/TMJDisorders.htm

4. Halazonetis, D.J. Cone-beam computed tomography is not the imaging technique of choice for comprehensive orthodontic assessment. American Journal of

Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2012;141:403,405,407,409,411. 5. Larson, B. Cone-beam computed tomography is the imaging technique of choice

for comprehensive orthodontic assessment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2012;141:403,405,407,409,411.

6. Alkhader, M. Kuribayashi, A., Ohbayashi, N., Nakamura, S., Kurabayashi, T. Usefulness of cone beam computed tomography in temporomandibular joints with soft tissue pathology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:343–348.

7. Cevidanes, L.H., Hajati, A.K., Paniagua, B., Lim, P.F., Walker, D.G., Palconet, G., Nackely, A.G., Styner, M., Ludlow, J.B., Zhu, H., Philips, C. Quantification of condylar resorption in temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:110–117.

8. Hatcher, DC. Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography. JADA 2010;141:3S-6S.

9. Scarfe, W.C., Farman, A.G., Sukovic, P. Advantages of Cone Beam CT. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72(1):75–80.

10. Krishnamoorthy, B., Mamatha,N.S., Kumar, V.A. TMJ imaging by CBCT: Current scenario. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jan-Jun; 3(1): 80–83.

11. Mah, J.K., Huang, J.C., Choo, H. Practical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. JADA 2010;141(3S):7S-13S.

12. Katsavrias, E.G. Morphology of the temporomandibular joint in subjects with Class II Division 2 malocclusions. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2006;129:470–478.

13. Saccucci, M., D’Attilio, M., Rodolfino, D., Festa, F., Plimeni, A., Tecco, S., Condylar volume and condylar area in class I, class II and class III young adult subjects. Head & Face Medicine. 2012;8:34-41.

14. Minich, C.M., Araujo, E.A., Behrents, R. G., Buschang, P. H., Tanaka, O.M., Kim, K.B. Evaluation of skeletal and dental asymmetries in Angle Class II subdivision malocclusions with cone-beam computed tomography. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2013;144:57–66.

15. Cassidy, S., Jackson, S., Turpin, D., Ramsay, D., Spiekerman, C., Huang, G. Classification and treatment of Class II subdivision malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2014;145:443–451. 16. Turpin, D.L. Correcting the Class II subdivision malocclusion. Am J Orthod

Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128: 555–556.

17. Burstone, C.J. Diagnosis and treatment planning of patients with asymmetries. Semin Orthod. 1998; 4: 153–164

18. Wertz, R.A. Diagnosis and treatment planning of unilateral Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1975; 45: 85–94.

19. Janson, G.R.P., Metaxas, A., Woodside, D.G., de Freitas, M.R., and Pinzan, A.P. Three-dimensional evaluation of skeletal and dental asymmetries in Class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119: 406–418 20. Landis JR and Koch GC. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical

data. Biometrics. 1977; 33:159-174.

21. Janson, G., Dainesi, E.A., Henriques, J.F.C., de Freitas, M.R., and de Lima,

K.J.R.S. Class II subdivision treatment success rate with symmetric and asymmetric extraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124: 257–264

22. Janson, G., Cruz, K.S., Woodside, D.G., Metaxas, A., de Freitas, M.R., and Henriques, J.F.C. Dentoskeletal treatment changes in Class II subdivision malocclusions in submentovertex and posteroanterior radiographs. Am J Orthod

Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126: 451–463.

23. Wenger R, Douangpanya S, Vig K, Beck M, Vig P “Class I, II and III differences in severity, duration and orthodontic results.” Journal of Dental Research 1996;75:437 (Abstract)

24. Vitral, R.W.F, Telles, C. S., Fraga, M.R., Oliveira, R.S.M F., Tanaka, O. M. Computed tomography evaluation of temporomandibular joint alterations in patients with class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions: condyle-fossa

relationship. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2004:126:48–52.

25. Rodrigues, A. F., Fraga, M.R. Farinazzo, R.W. Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in Class II Division 1 and Class III malocclusion patients: Condylar symmetry and condyle-fossa relationship. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2009;136:199–206.

26. Katsavrias, E.G., Halazonetis, D. J. Condyle and fossa shape in Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: A morphometric tomographic study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2005;128:337–346.

27. Coskuner HG, Ciger S. Three-dimensional assessment of the temporomandibular joint and mandibular dimensions after early correction of the maxillary arch form in patients with Class II division 1 or division 2 malocclusion. Korean J Orthod. 2015; 45(3):121-9.

28. Wangsrimongkol T, Manosudprasit M, Pisek P, Chowchuen P, Chantaramungkorn M. Temporomandibular joint growth adaptation and articular disc positional changes in functional orthopedic treatment: magnetic resonance imaging investigation. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012;95 Suppl 11:S106-15.

29. Ruf, S., Pancherz, H. Long-term TMJ effects of Herbst treatment: A clinical and MRI study. AJO-DO. 1998; 14:475-483.

30. Arat, Z.M., Gökalp, H., Erdem, D., Erden, I. Changes in the TMJ disc-condyle- fossa relationship following functional treatment of skeletal Class II Division 1 malocclusion: A magnetic resonance imaging study. AJO-DO. 2001; 119:316-319. 31. Fernandes, T.M., Adamczyk, J., Poleti, M.L., Henriques, J.F., Friedland, B, Garib,

D.G. “Comparison between 3D volumetric rendering and multiplanar slices on the reliability of linear measurements on CBCT images: an in vitro study.” J Appl Oral Sci. 2015 (1):56-63.

32. Gönner U, Ozkan V, Jahn E, Toll DE. Effect of the MARA appliance on the position of the lower anteriors in children, adolescents and adults with Class II malocclusion.

J OrofacOrthop 2007;68:397-412.

33. Pangrazio MN, Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger JL, Bayirli B, Movahhedian A. Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance in patients with Class II skeletal malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2012;82:971-7.

34. de Oliveira JN Jr, Rodrigues de Almeida R, Rodrigues de Almeida M, de Oliveira JN. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and cervical headgear

appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:54-62.

35. Arici, S., Akan, H., Yakubov, K., Arici, N. Effects of fixed functional appliance treatment on the temporomandibular joint. AJO-DO. 2008;133(6):809–814. 36. LeCornu, M., Cevidanes, L., Zhu, H., Wu, C. Larson, B., Nguyen, T. Three- dimensional treatment outcomes in Class II patients treated with the Herbst appliance: A pilot study. AJO-DO. 2013;144(6):818–830.

37. Al-Selah, A., Alsufyani, N., Flores-Mir, C., Nebbe, B., Major, P. Changes in temporomandibular joint morphology in class II patinets treated with fixed

mandibular repositioning and evalutated through 3D imaging: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac. Res. 2015;doi: 10.1111/ocr.12099. [Epub ahead of print]

38. Bowen, L., Yanmin, W., Fang, S., Min, L., Ying, D., Li, Z. “Cone-beam CT evaluation of the changes in the temporomandibular joint of patients with class II division 1 subdivi- sion malocclusion before and after Twin-block treatment.” West China Journal of Stomatology. 2013;31(6): 610-614. (Abstract)

39. Edwin Y. Wang, MD; Kenneth A. Fleisher. MRI of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders. Appl Radiol. 2008;37(9):17-25.