Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Anatomy and Physiology›Mandibular Condyle
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Mandibular Condyle

Anatomy and Physiology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-31 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 4 min read

The posterior process on the ramus of the mandible composed of two parts: a superior part, the articular portion, and an inferior part, the condylar neck.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (764 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

The posterior process on the ramus of the mandible composed of two parts: a superior part, the articular portion, and an inferior part, the condylar neck.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Condyle, Mandibular; Condyles, Mandibular; Mandibular Condyles.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Mandible
See also
Temporomandibular Joint

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 10,455 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Mandibular Condyle” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 1,491 of them (14.3%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 4,655 records.

Reviews account for 641 records (6.1%) and meta-analyses for 47. Randomized controlled trials number 103 (1.0%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 4,655 records; 2000-2009: 1,916 records; 2010-2019: 2,393 records; 2020 onward: 1,491 records4,655through 19991,9162000-20092,3932010-20191,4912020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19994,655
2000-20091,916
2010-20192,393
2020 onward1,491
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 6.1 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.4 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 1.0 percentReviews6.1% (641)Meta-analyses0.4% (47)Randomized controlled trials1.0% (103)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 10,455 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews6416.1%
Meta-analyses470.4%
Randomized controlled trials1031.0%

Method: PubMed query "Mandibular Condyle"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.

Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology

Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians
Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J
2015Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
69cc by
PMID 25803868 · DOI · PMC4372412
Circadian BMAL1 regulates mandibular condyle development by hedgehog pathway
Yu S, Tang Q, Xie M, Zhou X, Long Y, Xie Y, et al.
2020Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
31cc by
PMID 31747713 · DOI · PMC6985652
Evaluation of Imaging Software Accuracy for 3-Dimensional Analysis of the Mandibular Condyle. A Comparative Study Using a Surface-to-Surface Matching Technique
Lo Giudice A, Quinzi V, Ronsivalle V, Farronato M, Nicotra C, Indelicato F, et al.
2020Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
23cc by
PMID 32635238 · DOI · PMC7370104
Detection of mandibular condylar fractures on head CT scans in infants with witnessed falls
Belachew B, Meneses M, Guarilha T, Cerron-Vela CR, Shekdar K, Andronikou S
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
0cc by
PMID 42104099 · DOI · PMC13619684

Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians [1]

Research article Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J · · 2015 · cited 69 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
IntroductionProper imaging allows practitioners to evaluate an asymptomatic tempormandibular joint (TMJ) for potential degenerative changes prior to surgical and orthodontic treatment.
Closing excerpt
This information can be clinically useful in establishing the diagnostic criteria for condylar volume, metrical size, and position in the Malaysian East Asians population.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (239 words)

IntroductionProper imaging allows practitioners to evaluate an asymptomatic tempormandibular joint (TMJ) for potential degenerative changes prior to surgical and orthodontic treatment. The recently developed cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) allows measurement of TMJ bony structures with high accuracy. A study was undertaken to determine the morphology, and its variations, of the mandibular condyle and glenoid fossa among Malay and Chinese Malaysians.MethodsCBCT was used to assess 200 joints in 100 subjects (mean age, 30.5 years). i-CAT CBCT software and The Mimics 16.0 software were employed to measure the volume, metrical size, position of each condyle sample and the thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa (RGF).ResultsNo significant gender differences were noted in thickness of the RGF and condylar length; however condylar volume, width, height and the joint spaces were significantly greater among males. With regards to comparison of both TMJs, the means of condylar volume, width and length of the right TMJ were significantly higher, while the means of the left condylar height and thickness of RGF were higher. When comparing the condylar measurements and the thickness of RGF between the two ethnic groups, we found no significant difference for all measurements with exception of condylar height, which is higher among Chinese.ConclusionThe similarity in measurements for Malays and Chinese may be due to their common origin. This information can be clinically useful in establishing the diagnostic criteria for condylar volume, metrical size, and position in the Malaysian East Asians population.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 25803868 · DOI · PMC4372412

Circadian BMAL1 regulates mandibular condyle development by hedgehog pathway [2]

Research article Yu S, Tang Q, Xie M, Zhou X, Long Y, Xie Y, et al. · · 2020 · cited 31 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
ObjectiveChondrogenesis and endochondral ossification in mandibular condyle play crucial roles in maxillofacial morphogenesis and function.
Closing excerpt
ConclusionsCollectively, these results indicate that BMAL1 plays critical roles on chondrogenesis and endochondral ossification of MCC, giving a new insight on potential therapeutic strategies for facial dysmorphism.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (217 words)

ObjectiveChondrogenesis and endochondral ossification in mandibular condyle play crucial roles in maxillofacial morphogenesis and function. Circadian regulator brain and muscle arnt-like 1 (BMAL1) is proven to be essential for embryonic and postnatal development. The goal of this study was to define the functions of BMAL1 in the embryonic and postnatal growth of mandibular condylar cartilages (MCC).Materials and methodsMicro-CT, TUNEL staining and EdU assay were performed using BMAL1-deficient mice model, and in vitro experiments were performed using rat chondrocytes isolated from MCC. RNA sequencing in mandibular condyle tissues from Bmal1-/- mice and the age-matched wild-type mice was used for transcriptional profiling at different postnatal stages.ResultsThe expression levels of BMAL1 decrease gradually in MCC. BMAL1 is proved to regulate sequential chondrocyte differentiation, and its deficiency can result in the impairment of endochondral ossification of MCC. RNA sequencing reveals hedgehog signalling pathway is the potential target of BMAL1. BMAL1 regulates hedgehog signalling and affects its downstream cascades through directly binding to the promoters of Ptch1 and Ihh, modulating targets of hedgehog signalling which is indispensable for endochondral ossification. Importantly, the short stature phenotypes caused by BMAL1 deficiency can be rescued by hedgehog signalling activator.ConclusionsCollectively, these results indicate that BMAL1 plays critical roles on chondrogenesis and endochondral ossification of MCC, giving a new insight on potential therapeutic strategies for facial dysmorphism.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 31747713 · DOI · PMC6985652

Evaluation of Imaging Software Accuracy for 3-Dimensional Analysis of the Mandibular Condyle. A Comparative Study Using a Surface-to-Surface Matching Technique [3]

Research article Lo Giudice A, Quinzi V, Ronsivalle V, Farronato M, Nicotra C, Indelicato F, et al. · · 2020 · cited 23 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of 3D rendering of the mandibular condylar region obtained from different semi-automatic segmentation methodology.
Closing excerpt
Despite the excellent reliability, the present findings suggest that data of condylar morphology obtained with semi-automatic segmentation should be taken with caution when an accurate definition of condylar boundaries is required.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (222 words)

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of 3D rendering of the mandibular condylar region obtained from different semi-automatic segmentation methodology. A total of 10 Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) were selected to perform semi-automatic segmentation of the condyles by using three free-source software (Invesalius, version 3.0.0, Centro de Tecnologia da Informação Renato Archer, Campinas, SP, Brazil; ITK-Snap, version2.2.0; Slicer 3D, version 4.10.2) and one commercially available software Dolphin 3D (Dolphin Imaging, version 11.0, Chatsworth, CA, USA). The same models were also manually segmented (Mimics, version 17.01, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) and set as ground truth. The accuracy of semi-automatic segmentation was evaluated by (1) comparing the volume of each semi-automatic 3D rendered condylar model with that obtained with manual segmentation, (2) deviation analysis of each 3D rendered mandibular models with those obtained from manual segmentation. No significant differences were found in the volumetric dimensions of the condylar models among the tested software (p > 0.05). However, the color-coded map showed underestimation of the condylar models obtained with ITK-Snap and Slicer 3D, and overestimation with Dolphin 3D and Invesalius. Excellent reliability was found for both intra-observer and inter-observer readings. Despite the excellent reliability, the present findings suggest that data of condylar morphology obtained with semi-automatic segmentation should be taken with caution when an accurate definition of condylar boundaries is required.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32635238 · DOI · PMC7370104

Detection of mandibular condylar fractures on head CT scans in infants with witnessed falls [4]

Research article Belachew B, Meneses M, Guarilha T, Cerron-Vela CR, Shekdar K, Andronikou S · · 2026

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Infants experience facial fractures infrequently due to their limited mobility, and when such injuries do occur, the mandible is among the most affected facial bones.
Closing excerpt
This case series presents infants with condylar fractures that were first identified on head CT studies, emphasizing key clinical considerations and the importance of evaluating the mandibular condyles on every head CT.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (86 words)

Infants experience facial fractures infrequently due to their limited mobility, and when such injuries do occur, the mandible is among the most affected facial bones. Isolated mandibular condylar fractures, however, are rarely reported in this age group. Clinical detection is particularly challenging in nonverbal infants, making careful imaging assessment essential when evaluating facial trauma. This case series presents infants with condylar fractures that were first identified on head CT studies, emphasizing key clinical considerations and the importance of evaluating the mandibular condyles on every head CT.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42104099 · DOI · PMC13619684

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Biomechanical and biochemical characteristics of the mandibular condylar cartilage [5]
    Kuroda S, Tanimoto K, Izawa T, Fujihara S, Koolstra JH, Tanaka E · Osteoarthritis Cartilage · 2009 · cited 162 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Surgical treatment of adult mandibular condylar fractures provides better outcomes than closed treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
    Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E · J Oral Maxillofac Surg · 2015 · cited 125 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Open versus closed reduction of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on management [7]
    Brandt MT, Haug RH · J Oral Maxillofac Surg · 2003 · cited 95 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Pathophysiology and pharmacologic control of osseous mandibular condylar resorption [8]
    Gunson MJ, Arnett GW, Milam SB · J Oral Maxillofac Surg · 2012 · cited 90 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Does the surgical approach for treating mandibular condylar fractures affect the rate of seventh cranial nerve injuries? A systematic review and meta-analysis based on a new classification for surgical approaches [9]
    Al-Moraissi EA, Louvrier A, Colletti G, Wolford LM, Biglioli F, Ragaey M, et al. · J Craniomaxillofac Surg · 2018 · cited 79 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Bone scintigraphy as a diagnostic method in unilateral hyperactivity of the mandibular condyles: a review and meta-analysis of the literature [10]
    Saridin CP, Raijmakers PG, Tuinzing DB, Becking AG · Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg · 2011 · cited 76 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Al-koshab M, Nambiar P, John J. Assessment of condyle and glenoid fossa morphology using CBCT in South-East Asians. . 2015. PMID 25803868 · DOI · PMC4372412
  2. Yu S, Tang Q, Xie M, Zhou X, Long Y, Xie Y, et al.. Circadian BMAL1 regulates mandibular condyle development by hedgehog pathway. . 2020. PMID 31747713 · DOI · PMC6985652
  3. Lo Giudice A, Quinzi V, Ronsivalle V, Farronato M, Nicotra C, Indelicato F, et al.. Evaluation of Imaging Software Accuracy for 3-Dimensional Analysis of the Mandibular Condyle. A Comparative Study Using a Surface-to-Surface Matching Technique. . 2020. PMID 32635238 · DOI · PMC7370104
  4. Belachew B, Meneses M, Guarilha T, Cerron-Vela CR, Shekdar K, Andronikou S. Detection of mandibular condylar fractures on head CT scans in infants with witnessed falls. . 2026. PMID 42104099 · DOI · PMC13619684
  5. Kuroda S, Tanimoto K, Izawa T, Fujihara S, Koolstra JH, Tanaka E. Biomechanical and biochemical characteristics of the mandibular condylar cartilage. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009. PMID 19477310 · DOI
  6. Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E. Surgical treatment of adult mandibular condylar fractures provides better outcomes than closed treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015. PMID 25577459 · DOI
  7. Brandt MT, Haug RH. Open versus closed reduction of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003. PMID 14613090 · DOI
  8. Gunson MJ, Arnett GW, Milam SB. Pathophysiology and pharmacologic control of osseous mandibular condylar resorption. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012. PMID 22014941 · DOI
  9. Al-Moraissi EA, Louvrier A, Colletti G, Wolford LM, Biglioli F, Ragaey M, et al.. Does the surgical approach for treating mandibular condylar fractures affect the rate of seventh cranial nerve injuries? A systematic review and meta-analysis based on a new classification for surgical approaches. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018. PMID 29339001 · DOI
  10. 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. PMID 20970961 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-31.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • ChinAnatomy and Physiology
  • MandibleAnatomy and Physiology
  • AcetabulumAnatomy and Physiology
  • AcromionAnatomy and Physiology
  • CalcaneusAnatomy and Physiology
  • Cervical VertebraeAnatomy and Physiology

All 542 articles in Anatomy and Physiology →

At a glance

10,455
PubMed records on this heading
14%
published since 2020
641
review articles
103
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-31; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • ChinAnatomy and Physiology
  • MandibleAnatomy and Physiology
  • AcetabulumAnatomy and Physiology
  • AcromionAnatomy and Physiology
  • CalcaneusAnatomy and Physiology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support