Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger : official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft · 2026
Cone beam computed tomography assessment of lateral pterygoid plate morphology.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dandoczi Carol Antonio, Tudose Răzvan Costin, Rusu Mugurel Constantin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the morphometric characteristics of the lateral pterygoid plate (LPP) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), specifically evaluating sagittal length (SL) and angular relationships with key craniofacial structures, while also analyzing sex- and side-related variation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT scans from 69 adults were retrospectively analyzed, providing bilateral measurements of 138 LPPs. Four morphometric parameters were measured in the axial plane: (1) the SL of the LPP, and angles between the LPP and (2) the sagittal plane, (3) the mandibular ramus, and (4) the medial pterygoid plate (MPP). Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test for comparing sex distributions between sides within each measurement category, with significance set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: The LPP SL most commonly ranged from 8.5 to 12.5 mm (45 % of right sides, 54 % of left sides). The LPP-sagittal plane angle predominantly fell within 42.5°-55° (48 measurements: 35 right, 13 left; 35 % of total sample). The LPP-mandibular ramus angle was most frequently measured between 7 ° and 13 ° (49 measurements: 23 right, 26 left; 36 % of total). The LPP-MPP angle showed the greatest variability, with values ranging from 28° to 38°; it was most common (52 measurements: 33 right, 19 left) and accounted for 38 % of the total. No statistically significant differences were observed between sides or sex for any measured parameter (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: CBCT morphometric analysis revealed substantial anatomical variation in LPP dimensions and orientation, with no significant differences between sex or sides. These morphometric data provide essential reference values for surgical planning in maxillofacial procedures and may inform risk assessment protocols for temporomandibular disorders. Individual anatomical assessment remains crucial for optimal clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT scans from 69 adults were retrospectively analyzed, providing bilateral measurements of 138 LPPs. Four morphometric parameters were measured in the axial plane: (1) the SL of the LPP, and angles between the LPP and (2) the sagittal plane, (3) the mandibular ramus, and (4) the medial pterygoid plate (MPP). Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test for comparing sex distributions between sides within each measurement category, with significance set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: The LPP SL most commonly ranged from 8.5 to 12.5 mm (45 % of right sides, 54 % of left sides). The LPP-sagittal plane angle predominantly fell within 42.5°-55° (48 measurements: 35 right, 13 left; 35 % of total sample). The LPP-mandibular ramus angle was most frequently measured between 7 ° and 13 ° (49 measurements: 23 right, 26 left; 36 % of total). The LPP-MPP angle showed the greatest variability, with values ranging from 28° to 38°; it was most common (52 measurements: 33 right, 19 left) and accounted for 38 % of the total. No statistically significant differences were observed between sides or sex for any measured parameter (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: CBCT morphometric analysis revealed substantial anatomical variation in LPP dimensions and orientation, with no significant differences between sex or sides. These morphometric data provide essential reference values for surgical planning in maxillofacial procedures and may inform risk assessment protocols for temporomandibular disorders. Individual anatomical assessment remains crucial for optimal clinical outcomes.