medigraphic.com
ISSN 2395-9215 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNAM

2017, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortodon 2017; 5 (4)

Asymmetry of glenoid fossa as differential diagnosis for hemimandibular elongation

López BDF, Ruiz BJ

Language: Spanish
References: 37
Page: 221-230
PDF size: 491.81 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Facial asymmetry is one of the main findings during clinical practice with a prevalence between 21-85%; this causes both functional and aesthetic problems, and is manifested by an inconsistency in size, shape, or position of craniofacial structures on both sides of the mid-sagittal plane. Its etiology is attributed to hereditary and/or environmental factors that may be expressed during the fetal, childhood and/or pubertal stage, including unilateral condylar hyperactivity, functional disharmony of the masticatory muscles, dominance of one cerebral hemisphere, plagiocephaly, unilateral craniosynostosis, among others. The time of evolution prior to its detection contributes to the level of expression of the asymmetry. By means of a literature review, the proposal of a differential diagram and the presentation of a case report which includes facial analysis, cephalometric analysis, 3D tomographic reconstruction and findings of nuclear medicine, differential diagrams are suggested as well as a new classification of facial asymmetry. The differential diagnosis between asymmetry of the glenoid fossa and hemimandibular elongation is established, which requires a careful correlation of clinical findings and imaging tests, since both have similar clinical characteristics, but differ in their therapeutic approach.


REFERENCES

  1. Baek C, Paeng JY, Lee JS, Hong J. Morphologic evaluation and classification of facial asymmetry using 3-dimensional computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70 (5): 1161-1169.

  2. Kim YH, Sato K, Mitani H, Shimizu Y, Kikuchi M. Asymmetry of the sphenoid bone and its suitability as a reference for analyzing craniofacial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124 (6): 656-662.

  3. Kim SJ, Lee KJ, Lee SH, Baik HS. Morphologic relationship between the cranial base and the mandible in patients with facial asymmetry and mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144 (3): 330-340.

  4. Bjoerk A, Bjoerk L. Artificial deformation and cranio-facial asymmetry in ancient Peruvians. J Dent Res. 1964; 43: 353-362.

  5. Patil S, Rao RS, Majumdar B. Chromosomal and multifactorial genetic disorders with oral manifestations. J Int Oral Health. 2014; 6 (5): 118-125.

  6. Severt TR, Proffit WR. The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1997; 12 (3): 171-176.

  7. Russo PP, Smith RL. Asymmetry of human skull base during growth. Int J Morphol. 2011; 29 (3): 1028-1032.

  8. Basili C, Costa HN, Sasaguri K, Akimoto S, Slavicek R, Sato S. Comparison of the position of the mandibular fossa using 3D CBCT indifferent skeletal frames in human caucasic skulls. J Stomatol Occl Med. 2009; 2: 179-190.

  9. Sato S. The dynamic functional anatomy of craniofacial complex and its relation to the articulation of the dentitions. In: Slavicek R, editor. The masticatory organ: functions and dysfunctions. Klosterneuburg [Austria]: GAMMA Medizinisch-wissenschaftliche Fortbildung-AG; 2002.

  10. Sejrsen B, Jakobsen J, Skovgaard LT, Kjaer I. Growth in the external cranial base evaluated on human dry skulls, using nerve canal openings as references. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997; 55 (6): 356-364.

  11. Minoux M, Rijli FM. Molecular mechanisms of cranial neural crest cell migration and patterning in craniofacial development. Development. 2010; 137 (16): 2605-2621.

  12. Sato S, Takamoto K, Fushima K, Akimoto S, Suzuki Y. A new orthodontic approach to mandibular lateral displacement malocclusion-importance of occlusal plane reconstruction. Dent Jpn. 1989; 26: 81-85.

  13. Woodside DG, Metaxas A, Altuna G. The influence of functional appliance therapy on glenoid fossa remodeling. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987; 92 (3): 181-198.

  14. Kantomaa T. The shape of the glenoid fossa affects the growth of the mandible. Eur J Orthod. 1988; 10 (3): 249-254.

  15. Sato S. A treatment approach to malocclusion under the consideration of craniofacial dynamics. Makati, Philippines: Meaw Publishing House; 2001.

  16. Hinton RJ. Changes in articular eminence morphology with dental function. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1981; 54 (4): 439-455.

  17. Poikela A, Pirttiniemi P, Kantomaa T. Location of the glenoid fossa after a period of unilateral masticatory function in young rabbits. Eur J Orthod. 2000; 22 (2): 105-112.

  18. Sun L, Wang M, He J, Liu L, Chen S, Widmalm SE. Experimentally created nonbalanced occlusion effects on the thickness of the temporomandibular joint disc in rats. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79 (1): 51-53.

  19. Cohen MM Jr. Perspectives on craniofacial asymmetry. III. Common and/or well-known causes of asymmetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 24 (2): 127-133.

  20. López BD, Corral SC. Hiperplasia condilar: características, manifestaciones, diagnóstico y tratamiento. Revisión de tema. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq. 2015; 26 (2): 425-446.

  21. Wolford LM, Movahed R, Perez DE. A classification system for conditions causing condylar hyperplasia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 72 (3): 567-595.

  22. Nitzan DW, Katsnelson A, Bermanis I, Brin I, Casap N. The clinical characteristics of condylar hyperplasia: experience with 61 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66 (2): 312-318.

  23. Anaya-Flórez JA, Molina-Martínez N, Rueda CE, Morales-Latorre R, García-Rey RE, Martínez X et al. Manejo interdisciplinario de la hiperplasia condilar. Revista Ortousta. 2002; 2: 7-20.

  24. Eslami B, Behnia H, Javadi H, Khiabani KS, Saffar AS. Histopathologic comparison of normal and hyperplastic condyles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003; 96 (6): 711-717.

  25. Elbaz J, Wiss A, Raoul G, Leroy X, Hossein-Foucher C, Ferri J. Condylar hyperplasia: correlation between clinical, radiological, scintigraphic, and histologic features. J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25 (3): 1085-1090.

  26. Norman JE, Painter DM. Hyperplasia of the mandibular condyle. A historical review of important early cases with a presentation and analysis of twelve patients. Maxillofac Surg. 1980; 8 (3): 161-175.

  27. Obwegeser HL, Makek MS. Hemimandibular hyperplasia--hemimandibular elongation. J Maxillofac Surg. 1986; 14 (4): 183-208.

  28. López DF, Corral CM. Comparison of planar bone scintigraphy and single photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of active condylar hyperplasia. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016; 44 (1): 70-74.

  29. Ducharme S, Albaugh MD, Nguyen TV, Hudziak JJ, Mateos-Pérez JM, Labbe A et al. Trajectories of cortical surface area and cortical volume maturation in normal brain development. Data Brief. 2015; 5 :929-938.

  30. Hodder SC, Rees JI, Oliver TB, Facey PE, Sugar AW. SPECT bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis and management of mandibular condylar hyperplasia. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 38 (2): 87-93.

  31. Saridin CP, Raijmakers PG, Slootweg PJ, Tuinzing DB, Becking AG, van der Waal I. Unilateral condylar hyperactivity: a histopathologic analysis of 47 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68 (1): 47-53.

  32. Vásquez B, Olate S, Cantín M, Sandoval C, Fariña R, Del Sol M. Histopathological analysis of unilateral condylar hyperplasia: difficulties in diagnosis and characterization of the disease. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45 (5): 601-609.

  33. Pascual-Vaca AO, Rodríguez-Blanco C. Sistema estomatognático, osteopatía y postura. Osteopatía Científica. 2008; 3 (2): 88-90.

  34. Saridin CP, Raijmakers PG, Tuinzing DB, Becking AG. Bone scintigraphy as a diagnostic method in unilateral hyperactivity of the mandibular condyles: a review and meta-analysis of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40 (1): 11-17.

  35. Lippold C, Kruse-Losler B, Danesh G, Joos U, Meyer U. Treatment of hemimandibular hyperplasia: the biological basis of condylectomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 45 (5): 353-360.

  36. Fahey FH, Abramson ZR, Padwa BL, Zimmerman RE, Zurakowski D, Nissenbaum M et al. Use of (99m)Tc-MDP SPECT for assessment of mandibular growth: development of normal values. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 37 (5): 1002-1010.

  37. Lopez DF, Herrera-Guardiola S. Orthodontic treatment after high condylectomy in patients with unilateral condylar hyperplasia. J Clin Orthod. 2016; 50 (12): 727-735.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com