
Current issue
Archive
Manuscripts accepted
About the journal
Editorial board
Reviewers
Abstracting and indexing
Subscription
Contact
Instructions for authors
Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
|
1/2025
vol. 78 Original paper
Is panoramic radiography sufficient enough for the evaluation of mandibular condyle osseous changes and cortication types?
Rüya Sessiz
1
,
Emre Köse
2
J Stoma 2025; 78, 1: 52-58
Online publish date: 2025/03/19
Article file
- JOS-01083.pdf
[0.57 MB]
ENW EndNote
BIB JabRef, Mendeley
RIS Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
INTRODUCTIONTemporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are identified by cranio-facial pain that affects the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) or masticatory muscles, along with symptoms, such as limited mouth opening, clicking, and crepitus [1]. TMDs are the main source of orofacial pain that is not related to dental issues [2]. It has a multi-factorial etiology, including bruxism, malocclusion, hormones, or systemic disorders [3]. TMD causes de-generative osseous changes in TMJ osseous structures [4, 5]. Osseous changes as radiographic findings are essential part in finding a true diagnoses and proper treatment modality [5]. Panoramic radiography, computed tomography (CT), or cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) are preferred when evaluating TMJ osseous structures, while ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging are ideal in evaluating articular disc and chewing muscles [6, 7].Panoramic radiography (PR) is often used in initial dental examination [8]. It enables the evaluation of teeth, alveolar bones, nasal cavity, maxillary sinuses, and the whole TMJ simultaneously [9]. However, panoramic radiography, a 2-dimensional imaging method, may not be sufficient to distinguish fully the complex 3D structure of TMJ [9-11]. CBCT is frequently employed in 3-dimensional imaging in dentistry. Previous studies have shown that CBCT is sufficient and reliable in evaluating TMJ bone structures [12-14]. The CBCT technology offers more cost-effective equipment, reduces patient’s examination time, and delivers significantly lower radiation doses compared with conventional CT modality [15, 16]. OBJECTIVESThe purpose of the current study was to investigate the accuracy of panoramic radiography in detecting mandibular condyle osseous changes and mandibular condyle-articular eminence cortication types in patients with TMDs using CBCT as a gold standard. The null hypothesis was that panoramic radiography is sufficient enough to detect changes in the mandibular condyle and the difference in cortication in patients with TMDs.MATERIAL AND METHODSThis retrospective study was approved by the Non-Invasive Clinical Research Ethics Committee on Human Research at Aydın Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Medicine (protocol number: 2020/31), and followed the Helsinki Declaration guidelines. Panoramic radiographs and CBCT images of patients, who were referred to our clinic with TMDs’ symptoms, such as mouth-opening limitation, noise and pain during jaw movements, and non-harmonic movements of the joints, were evaluated in the study. Patients with congenital cranio-facial deformities, a prior history of facial trauma or surgery, and those with systemic diseases, which could impact the TMJ bone were not included in the study. Also, PR and CBCT images of patients with incorrect position, containing motion arti-facts, or images, which not fully visualized the TMJ, were excluded from the study. To avoid differences in osseous changes, CBCT and panoramic radiographs, which were not taken within 30 days or contained artifacts were not considered.IMAGE ANALYSESAll CBCT images were acquired by Planmeca Promax 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) with standard TMJ mode (field of view: 8 x 5 cm2, 8 mA, 90 kV, 12 s, voxel size: 0.2 mm), and evaluated using Romexis software v. 3.83. During CBCT scanning, patients stood with their Frankfurt plane parallel to the floor. They were in-structed to maintain centric occlusion and maximum intercuspation. Special chin rests and cephalostats were used to minimize movement. All panoramic radiographs were obtained in standard mode (66 kV, 6 mA, 16 s) using a digital panoramic X-ray device (Planmeca Promax, Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland), and were evaluated with Titan software v. 4.0.4.37. A dentomaxillofacial radiologist with 3 years of experience evaluated the images twice, with an interval of one month. While analyzing, PR and CBCT images were assessed separately from one another, without any information about patient associated with image. Additionally, TMJ images of both the right and left sides were individually considered.Osseous changes in the mandibular condyle were evaluated on panoramic radiographs and both coronal and sagittal sections of CBCT. Osseous changes in images were described as: (1) osteophyte, a localized bony growth originating from a mineralized surface of a joint; (2) erosion, defined as an area characterized by reduced density in the cortical bone and the surrounding sub-cortical bone; (3) sclerosis, as an area where there is increased density in the cortical bone that extends into the bone marrow; (4) flattening, a change in bony contour from a convex to a flat appearance; (5) pseudo-cyst bone cavity, a clearly defined osteolytic region in the adjacent sub-cortical bone without involving cortical destruction; (6) posterior concavity, a concave form in the posterior cortical bone contour of the mandibular condyle [17, 18]. Cortication of the mandibular condyle (MCC) and articular eminence (AEC) were analyzed based on the classification by Yalçın et al. [19]: Type 1: Surfaces of the condyle and articular eminence show similar or higher density com-pared with the surrounding cortical areas; Type 2: Surfaces of the condyle and articular eminence exhibit lower density than the surrounding structures; Type 3: The condyle and articular eminence lack cortication. Initially, assessments were conducted using panoramic radiographs and then, CBCT scans were performed on the sagittal section where the mandibular condyle and articular eminence were most clearly visible. STATISTICAL ANALYSISStatistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and differences between categorical variables were evaluated using chi-square test. Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Diagnostic accuracy (ratio of the sum of true positives and true negatives to all answers), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of panoramic radiographs were assessed for osseous change and cortication type, using the corresponding CBCT as a gold standard. Intra-observer reliability between the two sessions was assessed with Cohen’s k coefficient. The weighted k values were interpreted according to Landis and Koch criteria [20]: a k value of 0.0-0.2 = slight agreement; 0.21-0.40 = fair agreement, 0.41-0.60 = moderate agreement, 0.61-0.80 = substantial agreement, and 0.81-1.00 = almost perfect agreement.RESULTSThe final study sample consisted of 134 subjects (268 joints). There were 96 females (71.6%) and 38 males (28.4%), with a mean age of 41.6 ± 16.07 years (range: 18-82 years). The intra-observer reliability coefficient ranged from 0.83 to 1.00 for osseous changes in the mandibular condyle, from 0.64 to 0.75 for cortication of the mandibular condyle, and from 0.64 to 0.72 for cortication of the articular eminence, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement (Figures 1 and 2).Table 1 summarizes the osseous changes in the mandibular condyle examination performed from panoramic radiographs and CBCT images. The occurrence of flattening of the mandibular condyle was higher compared with all other bony changes on panoramic radiographs (p = 0.000). However, on CBCT, the presence of erosion in the mandibular condyle was higher compared with all other osseous changes (p = 0.000). When the osseous changes in the right-left mandibular condyle were compared, it was calculated that the number of osseous changes on the left side was higher than that on the right side using both imaging techniques (for panoramic radiography: p = 0.005; for CBCT: p = 0.012). Table 2 summarizes the distribution of MCC and AEC types according to sides seen on panoramic radio-graphs and CBCT images. In both imaging methods, type 1 MCC and AEC were observed more than type 2 and type 3 on each side (p = 0.000). Type 2 MCC and AEC were more common than type 3 on each side, but it was not statistically significant. Tables 3 and 4 present data corresponding to the assessment of diagnostic validity of panoramic ra-diography in detecting osseous changes of the mandibular condyle and cortication types using CBCT images as the gold standard. The specificity values for each osseous change were higher than the sensitivity values (Table 3). Moreover, it was observed that sensitivity ranged from 0 to 49% and specificity from 68 to 99%. The positive predictive value ranged from 0 to 36%, and the negative predictive value from 73 to 98%. The negative predictive values were found higher than the positive predictive values in detecting all osseous changes. Sensitivity of panoramic radiography in detecting MCC type 1 and AEC type 1 was higher than sensitivity of detecting other types. Accuracy of panoramic radiography in detecting MCC type 3 and AEC type 3 was over 90% (Table 4). DISCUSSIONIn patients with TMDs, osteoarthritic changes can be seen in TMJ components [4]. Osseous changes in temporomandibular joint disorders are more common in females than in males [4, 21, 22], which may be due to estrogen, progesterone, and relaxin hormones differences [23, 24]. Estrogen and relaxin are believed to play a role in TMJ degeneration by enhancing the production of tissue-degrading enzymes from the matrix metalloproteinase family in TMJ fibrocartilage [24]. The majority of patients with TMDs, who met the inclusion criteria of the current study were females (71.6%). Here, osseous changes in the mandibular condyle in patients with TMD were evaluated both on panoramic radiographs and CBCT images. Similar to previous studies, flattening and erosion were most common in the mandibular condyle [9, 21, 22, 25].Panoramic radiographs taken during a dental examination can provide a general impression of the TMJ. However, their sensitivity in evaluating changes in the condyle is low due to structural distortion, not showing the entire joint surface of the TMJ, and overlapping the surrounding bone structures, such as the zygomatic process [26, 27]. Because of these superimpositions, it was thought that erosion in the cortical layer on panoramic radiography images would be less noticeable than flattening. In adults, cortication of bony surfaces of the temporomandibular joint is not seen before approximately 18 years of age [28]. Bayrak et al. [29] reported that the left and right condyle cortication types of the same person may be different, and that the cortication of the mandible condyle in males is completed later than in females. There are studies showing that the level of mandibular condyle cortication increases with growing age [19, 29, 30]. Yalcın et al. [19] evaluated the MCC and AEC according to age on CBCT images, and found that mostly type 1 cortication was observed in the mandibular condyle, and mostly type 2 cortication was observed in the articular eminence. In the present study, cortication types were evaluated from both panoramic radiographs and CBCT images of patients over 18 years of age with TMDs. In both imaging techniques, mostly type 1 cortication was observed in both MCC and AEC. Considering the increase of cortication with age, this result was deemed normal. According to the results of the study, it can be said that the mandibular condyle and articular eminence cortication do not change when compared with the surrounding tissues in patients with TMDs. In future studies, MCC and AEC can be compared in different age groups, and in both healthy and TMDs patients. In previous studies, CBCT has been shown to provide reliable and precise evaluation of TMJ [13, 31, 32]. Hilgers et al. [13] reported that CBCT images allow for reproducible and accurate measurement in TMJ. Hon-da et al. [31] showed CBCT as an alternative to helical CT, with its less cost and less effective radiation dose while diagnosing osseous changes in the mandibular condyle. Like in the present research, many studies have considered CBCT the gold standard when investigating the accuracy of panoramic radiography in TMJ evaluation [10, 22, 33]. In a study, Hedge et al. [34] simulated osseous lesions and investigated the diagnostic accuracy of PR; they found high specificity (100%) but low sensitivity (24.14%) values. In a study investigating the diagnostic accuracy of panoramic radiography where CBCT was considered the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity values for flattening were found to be ranging 0.33-0.35 and 0.77-0.80, respectively. In the same study, sensitivity for osteophytes was reported between 0.05 and 0.08, and specificity as 0.97-1.00 [10]. According to a meta-analysis, the highest specificity value of PR for osseous changes in the mandibular condyle was for osteophytes, and the highest sensitivity value was for flattening [35]. In the current study, the results regarding the accuracy of panoramic radiography in identifying mandibular condyle osseous changes are generally similar to other studies. Based on previous research, we can say that due to the low sensitivity, panoramic radiography presents a weak potential as a screening tool for detecting mandibular condyle osseous changes. Here, the sensitivity of PR was found to be high in determining type 1 cortication, which represents the cortical border of the mandibular condyle and articular eminence being similar to or higher than the surrounding tissues. However, PR specificity values were higher than sensitivity ones in detecting type 2 and type 3 cortications. This once again proved that PR cannot produce a clear answer about cortication due to overlapping of surrounding structures. We should keep in mind that the high accuracy of PR in determining type 2 and type 3 cortications mentioned in the results section, is due to the excess of true negative responses. A limitation of this retrospective study was that the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) were not applied to select patients. It would be appropriate to use DC/TMD to standardize patients in future research. The current study focused exclusively on patients with TMDs; future research can achieve comparative results by including both healthy individuals and patients with TMDs. CONCLUSIONSFlattening and erosion of the mandibular condyle are frequently observed in patients with TMDs. The mandibular condyle cortication and articular eminence cortication of patients with TMDs are often seen at the same or higher intensity than the surrounding structures on panoramic radiographs and CBCT images. Panoramic radiography may be insufficient to evaluate the mandibular condyle osseous changes and cortication of the temporomandibular joint. Using three-dimensional imaging methods, such as CBCT, may be necessary since CBCT allows for detailed examination of TMJ bone structures in 3 dimensions in axial, coronal, and sagittal sections.DISCLOSURES1. Institutional review board statement: The study was approved by the Non-Invasive Clinical Research Ethics Committee on Human Research of the Aydın Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Medicine, with approval number: 2020/31.2. Assistance with the article: None. 3. Financial support and sponsorship: None. 4. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 5. This study is based on the specialist thesis of Rüya Sessiz, submitted and defended at the Faculty of Dentistry, Aydın Adnan Menderes University, in 2020 as a requirement for the Specialist Degree in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. References1. Scrivani SJ, Keith DA, Kaban LB. Temporomandibular disorders. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2693-2705. 2.
Mohl ND, Dixon DC. Current status of diagnostic procedures for temporomandibular disorders. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 56-64. 3.
Tanaka E, Detamore M, Mercuri L. Degenerative disorders of the temporomandibular joint: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J Dent Res 2008; 87: 296-307. 4.
Kim K, Wojczynska A, Lee JY. The incidence of osteoarthritic change on computed tomography of Korean temporomandibular disorder patients diagnosed by RDC/TMD; a retrospective study. Acta Odontol Scand 2016; 74: 337-342. 5.
Talaat W, Al Bayatti S, Al Kawas S. CBCT analysis of bony changes associated with temporomandibular disorders. Cranio 2016; 34: 88-94. 6.
Petersson A. What you can and cannot see in TMJ imaging – an overview related to the RDC/TMD diagnostic system. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 771-778. 7.
Yılmaz D, Kamburoğlu K. Comparison of the effectiveness of high resolution ultrasound with MRI in patients with temporomandibular joint dısorders. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48: 20180349. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20180349. 8.
Rushton V, Horner K, Worthington H. Aspects of panoramic radiography in general dental practice. Br Dent J 1999; 186: 342-344. 9.
Im YG, Lee JS, Park JI, Lim HS, Kim BG, Kim JH. Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of panoramic temporomandibular joint (TMJ) radiography to detect bony lesions in patients with TMJ osteoarthritis. J Dent Sci 2018; 13: 396-404. 10.
Ladeira DB, da Cruz AD, de Almeida SM. Digital panoramic radiography for diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint: CBCT as the gold standard. Braz Oral Res 2015; 29: S1806-83242015000100303. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0120. 11.
Dahlström L, Lindvall A. Assessment of temporomandibular joint disease by panoramic radiography: reliability and validity in relation to tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996; 25: 197-201. 12.
Honey OB, Scarfe WC, Hilgers MJ, Klueber K, Silveira AM, Haskell BS, et al. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the temporomandibular joint: comparisons with panoramic radiology and linear tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 429-438. 13.
Hilgers ML, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 128: 803-811. 14.
Hintze H, Wiese M, Wenzel A. Cone beam CT and conventional tomography for the detection of morphological temporomandibular joint changes. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 192-197. 15.
Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4-and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 83-86. 16.
Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S, Howerton W. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, New-Tom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 219-226. 17.
dos Anjos Pontual M, Freire J, Barbosa J, Frazão M, dos Anjos Pontual A, Fonseca da Silveira M. Evaluation of bone changes in the temporomandibular joint using cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 24-29. 18.
Hosoki H, Uemura S, Petersson A, Rohlin M, Akerman S. Concavity of the posterior surface of the temporomandibular condyle: clinical cases and autopsy correlation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996; 25: 221-227. 19.
Yalcin ED, Bozan C. Relationship between mandibular condyle and articular eminence cortication with mandibular cortical index on cone-beam CT. Surg Radiol Anat 2020; 42: 515-522. 20.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174. 21.
Alexiou K, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K. Evaluation of the severity of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritic changes related to age using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 141-147. 22.
Başaran M, Yılmaztürk SS, Bozdemir E. Efficacy of panoramic radiography in determining bony changes in temporomandibular joint. Turkiye Klinikleri Dishekimligi Bilimleri Dergisi 2021; 27: 6-14. 23.
Yasuoka T, Nakashima M, Okuda T, Tatematsu N. Effect of estrogen replacement on temporomandibular joint remodeling in ovariectomized rats. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58: 189-196. 24.
Wadhwa S, Kapila S. TMJ disorders: future innovations in diagnostics and therapeutics. J Dent Educ 2008; 72: 930-947. 25.
Kiliç SC, Kiliç N, Sümbüllü M. Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis: cone beam computed tomography findings, clinical features, and correlations. Int J Oral Max Surg 2015; 44: 1268-1274. 26.
Crow H, Parks E, Campbell J, Stucki D, Daggy J. The utility of panoramic radiography in temporomandibular joint assessment. Dentomaxil-lofac Radiol 2005; 34: 91-95. 27.
Hintze H, Wiese M, Wenzel A. Comparison of three radiographic methods for detection of morphological temporomandibular joint changes: panoramic, scanographic and tomographic examination. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 134-140. 28.
White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology-E-Book: Principles and interpretation: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. 29.
Bayrak S, Halicioglu S, Kose G, Halicioglu K. Evaluation of the relationship between mandibular condyle cortication and chronologic age with cone beam computed tomography. J Forensic Leg Med 2018; 55: 39-44. 30.
Bayrak S, Bulut DG. Relationship between condyle cortication, sphenooccipital synchondrosis, and chronological age. Oral Radiol 2020; 36: 190-196. 31.
Honda K, Larheim T, Maruhashi K, Matsumoto K, Iwai K. Osseous abnormalities of the mandibular condyle: diagnostic reliability of cone beam computed tomography compared with helical computed tomography based on an autopsy material. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 152-157. 32.
Larheim TA, Abrahamsson AK, Kristensen M, Arvidsson LZ. Temporomandibular joint diagnostics using CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140235. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20140235. 33.
Oliveira SR, Oliveira RDS, Rodrigues ED, Junqueira JLC, Panzarella FK. Accuracy of panoramic radiography for degenerative changes of the temporomandibular joint. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2020; 10: 96-100. 34.
Hegde V, Naikmasur VG, Burde KN, Jayade GR. Validity of orthopantomograph, cone beam computed tomography and CT for assessment of simulated lesions over mandibular condyle. J Oral Med Oral Surg Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 3: 139-141. 35.
Schroder ÂGD, Gonçalves FM, Germiniani JdS, Schroder LD, Porporatti AL, Zeigelboim BS, et al. Diagnosis of TMJ degenerative diseases by panoramic radiography: is it possible? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2023; 27: 6395-6412.
This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
|