Frequency of Anatomical Indicators Related to the Mental Foramen and Mandibular Canal of Edentulous Patients on Digital Panoramic Radiographs

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

2 Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

3 Post-graduate Student, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

Abstract

Background:Determining the location of mandibular canal and mental foramen in the implant treatment is important to prevent any damage to the mental foramen and mandibular canal. The interpretation of a radiographic image depends on the individual interpretation of the observer. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between two radiologists on the identification of mental foramen and mandibular canal.
Methods: In this study, 95 digital panoramic images ofedentulous patients were evaluated by two radiologists to determine the type of mental foramen according to the Yosue and Brooks classification as well as the type of mandibular canal according to the classification of Angelopoulos. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 17.
Results: The most common appearance of mental foramen was continuous type. The intra-examiner agreement on the type of mental foramen on the right and left sides was as much as 0.60 and 0.72, respectively. The highest frequency was observed in the anterior and middle one-third of the superior border of the mandibular canal related to type zero and posterior one-third related to type three. Type three in the inferior border of mandibular canal was the most frequent type in all one thirds. There was also a significant difference in the anterior, middle, and posterior one-third of the superior and inferior borders of mandibular canal observations.
Conclusion: The most common appearance of mental foramen on panoramic images was continuous type. The posterior one-third of mandibular canal was more clearly in panoramic images.

Keywords


Hwang K, Lee WJ, Song YB, Chung IH. Vulnerability of the inferior alveolar nerve and mental nerve during genioplasty: an anatomic study. J Craniofac Surg 2005; 16(1):10-4.
Phillips JL, Weller RN, Kulild JC. The mental foramen: 1. Size, orientation, and positional relationship to the mandibular second premolar. J Endod 1990; 16(5):221-3.
Pria CM, Masood F, Beckerley JM, Carson RE. Study of the inferior alveolar canal and mental foramen on digital panoramic images. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12(4):265-71.
Haas LF, Dutra K, Porporatti AL, Mezzomo LA, De Luca Canto G, Flores-Mir C, et al. Anatomical variations of mandibular canal detected by panoramic radiography and CT: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45(2):20150310.
Al Faleh W, Zahrani AA. Observer agreement in the radiographic assessment of mental foramen appearance on panoramic radiographs. Pakistan Oral Dent J 2005; 25(2):225-8.
White S, Pharoah M. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 7th ed. USA: Mosby;2013. p. 199-201.
Gungor K, Ozturk M, Semiz M, Brooks SL. A radiographic study of location of mental foramen in a selected Turkish population on panoramic radiograph. Coll Antropol 2006; 30(4):801-5.
Sakakura CE, Morais JA, Loffredo LC, Scaf G. A survey of radiographic prescription in dental implant assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32(6):397-400.
Hu KS, Choi DY, Lee WJ, Kim HJ, Jung UW, Kim S. Reliability of two different presurgical preparation methods for implant dentistry based on panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in cadavers. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2012; 42(2):39-44.
Lindh C, Petersson A. Radiologic examination for location of the mandibular canal: a comparison between panoramic radiography and conventional tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4(3):249-53.
Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 92(4):458-63.
Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89(5):630-7.
Shibli JA, Martins MC, Loffredo LC, Scaf G. Detection of the mandibular canal and the mental foramen in panoramic radiographs: intraexaminer agreement. J Oral Implantol 2012; 38(1):27-31.
Barbu HM, Comaneanu RM, Andreescu CF, Mijiritsky E, Nita T, Lorean A. Dental implant placement in patients with osteoporosis. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26(6):e558-9.
Sumer AP, Caliskan A, Uzun C, Karoz TB, Sumer M, Cankaya S. The evaluation of palatal bone thickness for implant insertion with cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45(2):216-20.
Angelopoulos C, Thomas SL, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek M. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66(10):2130-5.
Yosue T, Brooks SL. The appearance of mental foramina on panoramic radiographs. I. Evaluation of patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989; 68(3):360-4.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1):159-74.
Shah PP, Parikh KK, Shah MJ, Khan F. Radiographic study of mental foramen in a selected Indian population in Kheda district, Gujarat. Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology 2013; 25(1):13-7.
Oliveira-Santos C, Capelozza AL, Dezzoti MS, Fischer CM, Poleti ML, Rubira-Bullen IRF. Visibility of the mandibular canal on CBCT crosssectional images. J Appl Oral Sci 2011; 19(3):240-3.
Carter RB, Keen EN. The intramandibular course of the inferior alveolar nerve. J Anat 1971; 108(3):433-40.
Wuerhman AH, Manson-Hing LR. Dental Radiology. 5 ed. C.V. Mosby, St. Louis; 1981. p. 266-7.
Gowgiel J. The position and course of the mandibular canal. J Oral Implantol 1992; 18(4):383-5.