The study aimed to compare the difference of stress distributions in temporomandibular joints (TMJs) between the patients with mandibular asymmetry and asymptomatic subjects and find the relations between deviated distance and biomechanical stress using three-dimensional finite element method, to give guidance to dentists for correction of mandibular asymmetry. Ten facial symmetric subjects without symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and 10 mandibular asymmetric patients were recruited and assigned as the Control and Case group respectively. The FE models of the mandible and maxilla were reconstructed from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Muscle forces and boundary conditions were applied to the two groups corresponding to centric and anterior occlusions. The simulation manifested significant differences in stresses of the TMJs between the non-deviated and deviated sides in the Case group under the centric and anterior occlusions. The stresses in the Case group were significantly greater than those in the Control group, especially on the non-deviated side. Besides, there were weak and moderate correlations between the third principal stresses and deviated distances for the patients under centric and anterior occlusions. The excessive stresses in the TMJ of patients with mandibular asymmetry were associated with temporomandibular disorders.
BergersenEO.Enlargement and distortion in cephalometric radiography – compensation tables for linear measurements. Angle Orthod1980; 50(3): 230–244.
2.
BisharaSEBurkeyPSKharoufJG.Dental and facial asymmetries – a review. Angle Orthodontist1994; 64(2): 89–98.
3.
HaraguchiSIguchiYTakadaK.Asymmetry of the face in orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod2008; 78: 421–426.
4.
Ramirez-YanezGOStewartAFrankenE, et al. Prevalence of mandibular asymmetries in growing patients. Eur J Orthod2011; 33: 236–242.
5.
GoncalvesJRWolfordLMCassanoDS, et al. Temporomandibular joint condylar changes following maxillomandibular advancement and articular disc repositioning. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2013; 71(10): e1–e15.
6.
SanrománJFGonzálezJMGdel HoyoJA.Relationship between condylar position, dentofacial deformity and temporomandibular joint dysfunction: An mri and ct prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac1998; 26: 35–42.
7.
UekiKNakagawaKMarukawaK, et al. The relationship between temporomandibular joint disc morphology and stress angulation in skeletal Class III patients. Eur J Orthod2005; 27(5): 501–506.
8.
HaMHKimYIParkSB, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of the condylar remodeling occurring after mandibular set-back by bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy and rigid fixation. Korean J Orthod2013; 43(6): 263–270.
9.
UekiKMoroiASotoboriM, et al. Changes in temporomandibular joint and ramus after sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular prognathism patients with and without asymmetry. J Craniomaxillofac2012; 40(8): 821–827.
10.
KofodTCattaneoPMMelsenB.Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the mandible and temporomandibular joint on simulated occlusal forces before and after vertical ramus elongation by distraction osteogenesis. J Craniomaxillofac2005; 16: 421–429.
11.
Reina-RomoESampietro-FuentesAGomez-BenitoMJ, et al. Biomechanical response of a mandible in a patient affected with hemifacial microsomia before and after distraction osteogenesis. Med Eng Phys2010; 32(8): 860–866.
12.
TehranchiABehniaHHeidarpourM, et al. Biomechanical effects of surgical cut direction in unilateral mandibular lengthening by distraction osteogenesis using a finite element model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2012; 41: 667–672.
13.
TrpkovaBMajorPNebbeB, et al. Craniofacial asymmetry and temporomandibular joint internal derangement in female adolescents: a posteroanterior cephalometric study. Angle Orthod2000; 70: 81–88.
14.
UekiKNakagawaKTakatsukaS, et al. Temporomandibular joint morphology and disc position in skeletal class III patients. J Craniomaxillofac2000; 28(6): 362–368.
15.
OkesonJP.Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. 7th ed.Mosby, 2013.
16.
ChengHYPengPWLinYJ, et al. Stress analysis during jaw movement based on vivo computed tomography images from patients with temporomandibular disorders. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2013; 42: 386–392.
17.
MoureCQassemyarQDunaudONeivaCTestelinSDevauchelleB.Skeletal stability and morbidity with self-reinforced p (l/dl) la resorbable osteosynthesis in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. J Craniomaxillofac2012; 40: 55–60.
18.
ZhangYLLiuYShuJH, et al. Morphological study of the changes after sagittal split ramus osteotomy in patients with facial asymmetry: measurements of 3-dimensional modelling. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2018; 56(10): 925–930.
19.
CiarelliMJGoldsteinSAKuhnJL, et al. Evaluation of orthogonal mechanical properties and density of human trabecular bone from the major metaphyseal regions with materials testing and computed tomography. J Orthop Res1991; 9: 674–682.
20.
HarpJHAronsonJHollisM.Noninvasive determination of bone stiffness for distraction osteogenesis by quantitative computed tomography scans. Clin Orthop Relat Res1994; 301: 42–48.
21.
KopperdahlDLMorganEFKeavenyTM.Quantitative computed tomography estimates of the mechanical properties of human vertebral trabecular bone. J Orthop Res2002; 20: 801–805.
22.
RhoJYHobathoMCAshmanRB.Relations of mechanical properties to density and ct numbers in human bone. Med Eng & Phys1995; 17(5): 347–355.
23.
LiuZQianYZhangYFanY.Effects of several temporomandibular disorders on the stress distributions of temporomandibular joint: a finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2016; 19(2): 137–143.
24.
KoriothTWHannamAG.Deformation of the human mandible during simulated tooth clenching. J Den Res1994; 73(1): 56–66.
25.
PruimGJde JonghHJten BoschJJ.Forces acting on the mandible during bilateral static bite at different bite force levels. J Biomech1980; 13(9): 755–763.
26.
WolfordL.The sagittal split ramus osteotomy as the preferred treatment for mandibular prognathism. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2000; 58(3): 310–312.
27.
QiXDMaLMZhongSZ.The influence of the closing and opening muscle groups of jaw condyle biomechanics after mandible bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac2012; 40(6): e159–e164.
28.
LiuZFanYQianY.Comparative evaluation on three-dimensional finite element models of the temporomandibular joint. Clin Biomech2008; 23(Suppl 1): S53–S58.
29.
LiuZShuJZhangYFanY.The biomechanical effects of sagittal split ramus osteotomy on temporomandibular joint. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2018; 21(11): 617–624.
30.
KoppSKuzelkaJGoldmannT, et al. Modeling of load transmission and distribution of deformation energy before and after healing of basal dental implants in the human mandible. Biomed Eng-Biomed Tech2011; 56(1): 53–58.
31.
ZhangYL.The effect of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy on temporomandibular joints in patients with facial asymmetry: a morphologic and biomechanical study. PhD Thesis, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 2017.
32.
TayD.Physiognomy in the classification of individuals with a lateral preference in mastication. J Orofac Pain1994; 8(1): 61–72.
33.
UekiKMarukawaKShimadaM, et al. Condylar and disc positions after sagittal split ramus osteotomy with and without Le Fort I osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod2007; 103(3): 342–348.
34.
ShuJMaHJiaL, et al. Biomechanical behaviour of temporomandibular joints during opening and closing of the mouth: A 3D finite element analysis. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng2020: e3373.
35.
BeekMKoolstraJHvan RuijvenLJ, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the human temporomandibular joint disc. J Biomech2000; 33: 307–316.
36.
KangHBaoGJQiSN.Biomechanical responses of human temporomandibular joint disc under tension and compression. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2006; 35(9): 817–821.
37.
ShuJZhangYLiuZ.Biomechanical comparison of temporomandibular joints after orthognathic surgery before and after design optimization. Med Eng Phys2019; 68: 11–16.
