Evaluation of the mandibular canal course in Southeast Serbian population: A cone beam computed tomography study

Kosta Todorović; Marija Daković-Bjelaković; Jelena Popović; Aleksandar Mitić; Antonije Stanković; Ana Todorović; Nenad Stošić; Marija Nikolić

doi:10.5937/afmnai42-48478

Research paper

Published: 01.12.2024.

<< Prev | Next >>

PDF

https://doi.org/10.5937/afmnai42-48478

Evaluation of the mandibular canal course in Southeast Serbian population: A cone beam computed tomography study

Abstract

Oral surgical interventions in the mandibular region require detailed knowledge of the position and course of the mandibular canal. The aim of this study was to determine the most common course of mandibular canal on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images in the population of Southeast Serbia. One hundred ninety-four mandibular canals on CBCT images of 97 patients (48 male and 49 female) aged 18-65 years were analyzed in the study. According to Worthington, courses of mandibular canals are classified into catenary, descending, and straight. The obtained results were analyzed in relation to the gender and the age of the patients as well as to the left and right side of the mandible. The most common course of mandibular canal on the analyzed images was catenary (41.2%), then straight (37.1%), while the least was descending (21.6%). The most common type in males was the catenary (46.9%), while the straight type was the most common in females (39.6%). Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in the distribution of the mandibular canal course in relation to the gender, age of the patients, and the side of the mandible. The observed variations emphasize the importance of careful individual preoperative analysis of CBCT images of each patient as well as planning different treatment modalities in the region of the mandible.

References

Ozturk A, Potluri A, Vieira AR. Position and course of the mandibular canal in skulls. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2012;113(4):453–8.

Cankovic D, Cankovic M, Ukropina S, Mijatovic-Jovanovic V, Cankovic S. Association of health determinants and depressive symptoms with tooth loss in the Serbian adult population: A cross-sectional study. Vojnosanitetski pregled. 2019;76(10):985–97.

Vieira CL, Veloso S do AR, Lopes FF. Location of the course of the mandibular canal, anterior loop and accessory mental foramen through cone-beam computed tomography. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 2018;40(12):1411–7.

Characteristics Of The Mental Foramen In Different Populations. The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology. 2011;4(2).

Lvovsky A, Bachrach S, Kim HC, Pawar A, Levinzon O, Ben Itzhak J, et al. Relationship between Root Apices and the Mandibular Canal: A Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Comparison of 3 Populations. Journal of Endodontics. 2018;44(4):555–8.

Mangla R, Singh N, Dua V, Padmanabhan P, Khanna M. Evaluation of mandibular morphology in different facial types. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2011;2(3):200.

Kumar MPS. Assessment of Relation and Course of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Using CBCT-A Retrospective Study of 120 Cases. International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Science. :4320–5.

Mirbeigi S, Kazemipoor M, Khojastepour L. Evaluation of the Course of the Inferior Alveolar Canal: The First CBCT Study in an Iranian Population. Polish Journal of Radiology. 81:338–41.

Almahdi HM, Alabdrabulridha Z, AlAbbas J, Saad AA, Alarka I, Alghatm S, et al. Permanent First Mandibular Molar: Loss Prevalence and Pattern among Saudis in Al-Ahsa. European Journal of Dentistry. 2023;17(03):840–4.

10.

Okiriamu A, Butt F, Opondo F, Onyango F. Morphology and Variant Anatomy of the Mandibular Canal in a Kenyan Population: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study. Craniomaxillofacial Research & Innovation. 2023;8.

11.

Liu T, Xia B, Gu Z. Inferior alveolar canal course: a radiographic study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2009;20(11):1212–8.

12.

Asghar A, Priya A, Ravi KS, Iwanaga J, Tubbs RS, Naaz S, et al. An evaluation of mandibular canal variations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anatomical Science International. 2023;98(2):176–84.

13.

Jung YH, Cho BH. Radiographic evaluation of the course and visibility of the mandibular canal. Imaging Science in Dentistry. 2014;44(4):273.

14.

Razi T, Emamverdizadeh P, Nilavar N, Razi S. Comparison of the Hounsfield Unit in CT scan with the Gray Level in cone-beam CT. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 13(3):177–82.

15.

Worthington P. Injury to the inferior alveolar nerve during implant placement: a formula for protection of the patient and clinician. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(5):731–4.

16.

Kawashima Y, Sakai O, Shosho D, Kaneda T, Gohel A. Proximity of the Mandibular Canal to Teeth and Cortical Bone. Journal of Endodontics. 2016;42(2):221–4.

17.

Kovisto T, Ahmad M, Bowles WR. Proximity of the Mandibular Canal to the Tooth Apex. Journal of Endodontics. 2011;37(3):311–5.

18.

Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1).

19.

Zahedi S, Mostafavi M, Lotfirikan N. Anatomic Study of Mandibular Posterior Teeth Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography for Endodontic Surgery. Journal of Endodontics. 2018;44(5):738–43.

20.

ALGHAMDI HS, JANSEN JA. The development and future of dental implants. Dental Materials Journal. 2020;39(2):167–72.

21.

Valenzuela-Fuenzalida JJ, Cariseo C, Gold M, Díaz D, Orellana M, Iwanaga J. Anatomical variations of the mandibular canal and their clinical implications in dental practice: a literature review. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 2021;43(8):1259–72.