Anatomical Variations in Condylar Shape and Symmetry: Study of 100 Patients

Assessment of Condylar Shape through Digital Panoramic Radiograph among Nepalese Population: A Proposal for Classification

“…The second most common shape seen in our study was flattened (8.76%) which was similar to the study by Nagaraj et al [ 15 ] (7.5%), quite higher among the studies by Singh and Chakrabarty [ 12 ] (19%) and Singh et al [ 17 ] (14%), quite lower in few of the studies by Singh et al [ 8 ] (2.85%), Maqbool et al [ 13 ] (2.58%), Kanjani et al [ 14 ] (2.62) but reported it to be the most common after diamond/angle shape, whereas studies done by Sonal et al [ 2 ], Khanal [ 7 ], Shaikh et al [ 9 ], Anisuzzaman et al [ 16 ], and Jawahar and Maragathavalli [ 11 ] did not mention about flattened shapes.…”

“…The third most common shape seen in our study was diamond/angled (4.7%), which was similarly seen in other studies by Sonal et al [ 2 ] (9%), Singh et al [ 8 ] (3.2%), Shaikh et al [ 9 ] (4.8%), Anisuzzaman et al [ 16 ] (9%), and Jawahar and Maragathavalli [ 11 ] (9%), whereas it was quite high in the studies by Khanal [ 7 ] (22.64%), Singh and Chakrabarty [ 12 ] (28%), Kanjani et al [ 14 ] (29.29), Maqbool et al [ 13 ] (29.31%), and Singh et al [ 17 ] (30.33%). This could be attributed to the reason that these studies have included a bird beak shaped as one of the classification which was not included in our study as well as studies [ 2 , 8 , 9 , 11 ] similar to our study.…”

“…This could be attributed to the reason that these studies have included a bird beak shaped as one of the classification which was not included in our study as well as studies [ 2 , 8 , 9 , 11 ] similar to our study. Nagaraj et al [ 15 ] and Singh and Chakrabarty [ 12 ] have not discussed about diamond shape in their study.…”

“…We found round/oval shape to be the highest prevalence (79%) in our population which was similarly high in studies done by Khanal (63.6%) [ 7 ], Sonal et al [ 2 ] (60%), Anisuzzaman et al [ 16 ] (60%), Maqbool et al [ 13 ] (60.6%), Jawahar and Maragathavalli [ 11 ] (58.5%), Shaikh et al [ 9 ] (50%), Kanjani et al [ 14 ] (46.12), Nagaraj et al [ 15 ] (142.8%), Singh and Chakrabarty [ 12 ] (41%), Singh et al [ 8 ] (35.4%), and Singh et al [ 17 ] (34.5%). The difference in percentage could be because our study included a very wide range of age group, i.e., as young as 11 years to >50 years of patients, which was not taken with any of the studies.…”

“…The most common classification system (which was found/used in most of the previous studies and also with overall highest number of citations) followed in the previous studies was of oval, bird beak, diamond, and crooked finger types of condyles [ 2 , 7 , 9 – 11 ]. Two of the studies (second highest overall citation) followed different classification as rounded, angled, flattened, and mixed types of condyles [ 6 , 12 ]. The other two studies followed different classification as round, angled, flat, and convex [ 13 , 14 ].…”