Retrospective CBCT study reveals no link between ear canal volume, condyle morphology, and jaw alignment classes, suggesting anatomical independence across bite types.
Evaluation of the relationship between external ear canal volume, condylar morphology and positional parameters, and sagittal skeletal classes using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). This retrospective study included 60 patients who could be classified according to their sagittal skeletal pattern on CBCT images. Each group consisted of ten males and ten females. The occlusion groups were determined according to the Angle classification. Condyle positions in sagittal sections: condyle-articular eminence, condyle-fossa, and condyle-external ear canal distances were measured. Condyle morphologies in coronal sections were classified as flat, angled, convex, and round. External ear canal and condyle volumes were measured with the ITK-SNAP program. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program (SPSS, version 20.0). Quantitative data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA test, while qualitative data were evaluated using the chi-square test. The mean age of patients in skeletal Class I was 33.4 ± 12.6 years. In Class II, it was 39.4 ± 16 years. In Class III, it was 26.9 ± 9.3 years. Male patients had larger external ear canal volume, condyle volume, condyle-fossa distance, and left condyle-external ear canal distance than their female counterparts. No statistically significant associations were identified between the skeletal and dental classifications of the jaws and the external ear canal volume, condyle position as well as morphology. Measurement differences between male and female subjects corresponded with known physical distinctions, yet the lack of correlation among the external ear canal, condyle, and jaw structures, despite their shared embryological origins and functional roles, underscores the need for studies involving larger and more diverse populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ERTAŞ et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: