Evaluation of Retromolar Canals using Cone Beam Computer Tomography/ Avaliação do canal retromolar por meio de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34119/bjhrv4n4-123Keywords:
Retromolar canal, Anatomical variation, Cone beam computer tomography.Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence, location and clinical implications related to the presence of the retromolar canal (RMC) on cone beam computed tomography(CBCT). CBCT images of patients from Latin America Institute for Dental Research and Education - Curitiba,Pr,Brazil, was performed from June/2008 to February/2013. The interpretation was performed by a calibrated examiner, according to the criterias: presence, location and classification of the RMC variation, as well as, measurements of horizontal distances of the RMC in relation to the buccal bone cortical and diameter of these canals. A total of 751 CBCT images were interpreted: 486(64.7%) from females and 265 (35.3%) from male patients, with mean age of 54.57 (±13.23) years. The presence of RMC was observed in 58 (7.7%) patients, 23 men and 35 women. A total of 1502 hemi- mandibles were analyzed. The RMC was identified in 69(4.6%) hemi-mandibles, 44(63.8%) from females and 25(36.2%) from males. Thirty (42.8%) RMC were observed on the right side and 40 (57.2%) on the left one. The type B1 (n=33; 47.1%) was the most common, followed by the type A1 (n=18;25.7%). The mean diameter of RMC was 0.97mm (±0.44), and the mean distance between retromolar foramen and the buccal cortical of the mandible was 4.12mm (±1.35). There were no significant differences between the distances and genders, and distances and sides (p > 0.05). The prevalence of RMC was 7.7% in the studied sample; they were predominantly unilateral and showed to be type B1.
References
Ossenberg NS. Retromolar foramen of the human mandible. AmJ Phys Anthropol 1987;73(1):119-28.
Von Arx T, Hänni A, Sendi P, Buser D, Bornstein M. Radiographic study of the mandibular retromolar canal: an anatomic structure with clinical importance. J Endodontic 2011;37(2):1630-5.
Sekerci AS, Sisman Y, Payveren MA. Retromolar canal as observed on cone- beam computed tomography: Report of two cases with clinical importance. J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2013;2(1):86-9.
Bilecenoglu B, Tuncer N. Clinical and anatomical study of retromolar foramen and canal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64(10):1493-7.
Blanton PL, Jeske AH. The key to profound local anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:753–60.
Schejtman R, Devoto FC, Arias NH. The origin and distribution of the elements of the human mandibular retromolar canal. Arch Oral Biol 1967;12(11):1261-8.
Potu KB, Jagadeesan S, Bhat KMR, Sirasanagandla SR. Retromolar foramen and canal: A comprehensive review on its anatomy and clinical applications. Morphologie 2013;97:31-7.
Reyneke JP, Tsakiris P, Becker P. Age as a factor in the complication rate after removal of unerupted/ impacted third molars at the time of mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Sur. 2002;60(6):654-9.
Naitoh M, Hiraiwa Y, Aimiya H, Ariji E. Observation of bifid mandibular canal using cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:155-9.
Sisman Y, Ercan-Sekerci A, Payveren-Arikan M, Sahman H. Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam CT compared with panoramic images in predicting retromolar canal during extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015;20(1): e74-e81.
Suazo GI, Cantín LM, López FB, Valenzuela UV, Valenzuela RR. Morphometric study of the retromolar triangle. Int J Odontostomat 2007;1(2):129-32.
Patil S, Matsuda Y, Nakajima K, Araki K, Okano T. Retromolar canals as observed on cone-beam computed tomography: their incidence, course, and characteristics. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;115:692-9.
Muinelo-Lorenzo J, Suarez-Quintanilla JA, Fernandez-Alonso A, Marsillas- Rascado S, Suarez-Cunqueiro MM. Descriptive study of the bifid mandibular canals and retromolar foramina: cone beam CT vs panoramic radiography. Dento Maxillofacial Radiol 2014;43. Doi:10.1259/dmfr.20140090
Singh S. Aberrant buccal nerve encountered at third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1981; 52:142.
Lew K, Townsen G. Failure to obtain adequate anaesthesia as- sociated with a bifid mandibular canal: a case report. Aust Dent J 2006;51:86–90.
Boronat Lopez A, Penarrocha Diago M. Failure of locoregional anesthesia in dental practice. Review of the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006; 11: 510–13.
Carter RB, Keen EN.The Intra-mandibular Course of the Inferior Alveolar Nerve. J. Anat 1971;10: 433-40.
Pinsolle V, Truilhé Y, Majoufre C, Michelet V, Pinsolle J. Posterior marginal mandibulectomy for cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Experience with 14 clinical cases. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 1997;42(3):223-7.
Kawai T, Asaumi R, Sato I, Kumazawa Y, Yosue T. Observation of the retromolar foramen and canal of the mandible: A CBCT and macroscopic study. Oral Radiol 2012;28:10-4.
Lizio G, Pelliccioni GA, Ghigi G, Fanelli A, Marchetti C. Radiographic assessment of the mandibular retromolar canal using cone-beam computed tomography. Acta Odontol Scand 2013; 71: 650–5.
Filo K, Schneider T, Kruse AL, Locher M, Grätz KW, Lübbers HT. Frequency and anatomy?of the retromolar canal – implications for the dental practice. Swiss Dental Journal 2015;125:278-85.
Kang JH, Lee KS, Oh MG, Choi HY, Lee SR, Oh SH, et.al. The incidence and configuration of the bifid mandibular canal in Koreans by using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2014;44:53-60.
Garnieldien MY, Schoor AV. Retromolar foramen: an anatomical study with clinical considerations.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;54(7):784-7.
Mish C. Use of the mandibular ramus as a donor site for onlay bone grafting. J Oral Implantol 2000;16:42-9.
Di Bari R, Coronelli R, Cicconetti A. An anatomical radiographic evaluation of the posterior portion of the mandible in relation to autologous bone harvest procedures. J Craniofac Surg 2004;25(5):475-83.
Levine MH; Goddard AL; Dodson TB. Inferior alveolar nerve canal position: a clinical and radiographic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:470-74.
Naitoh M, Nakahara K, Suenaga Y, Gotoh K, Kondo S; Ariji E. Variations of the bony canal in the mandibular ramus using cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol 2010;26:36–40.
Ozturk A, Potluri A, Vieira AR. Position and course of the mandibular canal in skulls. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;113(4):453-58.
Mizbah K, Gerlach N, Maal TJ, Bergé SJ, Meijer GJ. The clinical relevance of bifid and trifid mandibular canals. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;16:147-51.
Fukami K, Shiozaki K, Mishima A, Kuribayashi A, Hamada Y, Kobayashi K. Bifid mandibular canal: confirmation of limited cone beam CT findings by gross anatomical and histological investigations. Dento Maxillofacial Radiol 2012;41:460-5.
Kuribayashi A, Watanabe H, Imaizumi A, Tantanapornkul W, Katakami K, Kurabayashi T. Bifid mandibular canals: cone beam computed tomography evaluation. Dento Maxillofacial Radiol 2010;39:235-9.
Chagas MM, Silva MAG, Cavalcanti MGP. Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography imaging in placed dental implants: comparison between multiplanar reconstruction and parasagittal images. Brazilian Journal of Development 2021;7(4):34811-22.
