## 7 Conclusions  
This study provides valuable insights into the relationship between craniofacial morphology and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), revealing important gender-specific differences. Our findings showed that Class II skeletal malocclusions, particularly mandibular retrognathia, were more prevalent in females with TMDs, while males exhibited a higher incidence of brachyfacial hypodivergent profiles. These morphological differences suggest that distinct diagnostic and treatment strategies may be required for male and female patients.  
In summary, based on the information gathered from the literature and our study, it can be stated that:  
Class II malocclusion is more frequently associated with muscular disorders. However, there is no definitive link in the scientific literature with specific joint problems such as clicks, joint blockage, or dislocations. Consequently, it appears that Class II malocclusion is related only to muscular problems.  
We therefore found that the reduced vertical dimension of the face that hypodivergent patients present leads to greater compression of the joint tissues and a consequent muscle hypertonia that causes painful symptoms in patients.  
Hyperdivergent subjects, on the other hand, have greater ligament laxity and muscle hypotonia that shows fewer symptomatic problems of the TMJ; this does not detract from the fact that hyperdivergent subjects with ligament laxity are more subject to condyle-disc incoordination, as supported by [PERSON] and [PERSON] in their study [18].  
Furthermore, the position of the condyle in relation to the fossa varies significantly based on skeletal class and divergence patterns, with hypodivergent patients showing greater joint compression. This reinforces the importance of individualized diagnostic protocols that consider both skeletal and functional factors.  
Finally, it is important to remember that the studies supporting the link between skeletal malocclusions and temporomandibular disorders are few. Therefore, the available information is still limited and sometimes conflicting.  
The significance of this study lies in its contribution to a more nuanced understanding of how craniofacial characteristics influence the development and management of TMDs. By identifying specific skeletal patterns associated with TMDs, clinicians can improve treatment planning, potentially leading to more effective, personalized interventions. Future research should focus on expanding the sample size and exploring the interplay between systemic conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and TMDs to provide further insights into the multifactorial nature of this disorder.  
To resolve these discrepancies, specific areas for future research are suggested.  
Longitudinal studies: Conduct long-term studies to observe the evolution of skeletal malocclusions and temporomandibular disorders over time.  
Biomechanical analysis: Examine how biomechanical forces influence the relationship between skeletal malocclusions and temporomandibular disorders.  
Genetics: Investigate the role of genetic factors in the predisposition to skeletal malocclusions and temporomandibular disorders.  
Therapeutic interventions: Evaluate the effectiveness of various orthodontic and surgical treatments in improving the symptoms of temporomandibular disorders in patients with skeletal malocclusions.  
Comparative studies: Compare groups of patients with and without skeletal malocclusions to identify significant differences in temporomandibular disorders.  
However, research, thanks in part to the more detailed images provided by the cone-beam CT scan, is progressing in this field.