Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences

Evaluation of Mandibular Lingual Concavity in Premolar and Molar Region Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Hamed Ebrahimnejad 1
Jahangir Haghani 1
Atie Safaee 2
Amir Sadra Jahankhah 3
Maryam Rad 1

1 Oral and Dental Diseases Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

2 School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 General Dentist, Kerman, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22062/jkmu.2022.91860
Abstract
Background: Implant therapy has become an integral part of dental practice. However, surgical accidents and complications by placing implants may occur. So knowledge of bone morphology is mandatory for correct implant direction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the morphological parameters of mandibular concavities using Cone-beam Computed Tomography.
Methods: In this study, 100 cone-beam computed tomography images were assessed on cross-sectional view. The mandible morphology 2 mm above the inferior alveolar canal was classified into the convex (C), parallel (P) and undercut (U) type, based on the presence of lingual concavity and the shape of alveolar ridge. The prevalence of each group and the lingual concavity characters, including the depth and the angulation were determined by the measurements of selected anatomic landmarks. Data analysis was performed through SPSS26 and using Pearson correlation, t- test and Chi-Square test. The significance level was set at 0.05.
Results: One hundred subjects (mean age: 38.89± 12.10, range of 19-63 years) were studied. The U type was the most prevalent, accounting for 51% of the study population. The mean undercut depth and angulation at the level 2 mm above the inferior alveolar canal were respectively 3/22 ± 0.92 mm and 50.42 ±4.75 degree. Concavity depth and its angle showed no significant correlation with age, gender, edentulous area and type of ridge.
Conclusion: The anatomic location and the degree of the lingual concavity presented in this article added more information about implant treatment planning at mandibular premolar and molar regions.

Keywords

Anatomy
Dental Implant
Lingual
Mandible
  1. Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH, Yeh CY, Rudek I, Wang HL. Cross-sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22(2):201-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.
    x.
  2. Misch K, Wang HL. Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent. 2008; 17(2):159-68. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181752f61.
  3. Quirynen M, Mraiwa N, van Steenberghe D, Jacobs R. Morphology and dimensions of the mandibular jaw bone in the interforaminal region in patients requiring implants in the distal areas. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14(3):280-5. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140305.x.
  4. Chen LC, Lundgren T, Hallström H, Cherel F. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. J Periodontol. 2008; 79(3):401-5. doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.070021.
  5. Imanimoghaddam M, Hoseini-Zarch SH, Rahpeyma A, Khaki N, Moeini SH. CBCT Findings in different types of temporomandibular joint ankylosis. Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences, 2020; 27 (6):553-568. doi: 10.22062/jkmu.2020.91530.
  6. Tofanghchiha M, Porsamimi J, Kafilzadeh S, Mobini M. The accuracy of cone-beam computerized tomography linear measurements in human dry mandible. Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. 2014; 20(1):61-68.
  7. olroyd JR, Gulson AD. The radiation protection implications of the use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dentistry–what you need to know; 2009. https://www.sedentexct.eu/system/
    files/sedentexct_project_guidance_uk.pdf
  8. Madrigal C, Ortega R, Meniz C, Lopez-Quiles J. Study of available bone for interforaminal implant treatment using cone-beam computed tomography. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008; 13(5):307-12. PMID: 18449115.
  9. Jadu FM, Jan AM. Referral pattern to a university-based oral and maxillofacial cone beam CT service. Indian J Dent Res. 2019; 30(4):544-547. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_295_18.
  10. Froum S, Casanova L, Byrne S, Cho SC. Risk assessment before extraction for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a computerized tomographic scan study. J Periodontol. 2011; 82(3):395-402. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.100360.
  11. Parnia F, Fard EM, Mahboub F, Hafezeqoran A, Gavgani FE. Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 109(1):32-6. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.035.
  12. Panjnoush M, Eil N, Kheirandish Y, Mofidi N, Shamshiri A R. Evaluation of the concavity depth and inclination in jaws using CBCT. Caspian J Dent Res. 2016; 5(2):17-23.
  13. Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Eitner S, Zöller JE, Kreppel M. Lingual concavities in the mandible: a morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43(2):254-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.11.018.
  14. Chan HL, Benavides E, Yeh CY, Fu JH, Rudek IE, Wang HL. Risk assessment of lingual plate perforation in posterior mandibular region: a virtual implant placement study using cone-beam computed tomography. J Periodontol. 2011; 82(1):129-35. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.100313.
  15. Leong DJ, Chan HL, Yeh CY, Takarakis N, Fu JH, Wang HL. Risk of lingual plate perforation during implant placement in the posterior mandible: a human cadaver study. Implant Dent. 2011; 20(5):360-3. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182263555.
  16. Herranz-Aparicio J, Marques J, Almendros-Marqués N, Gay-Escoda C. Retrospective study of the bone morphology in the posterior mandibular region. Evaluation of the prevalence and the degree of lingual concavity and their possible complications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016; 21(6):731-e736. doi: 10.4317/medoral.21256.
  17. Annibali S, Ripari M, La Monaca G, Tonoli F, Cristalli MP. Local accidents in dental implant surgery: prevention and treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2009; 29(3):325-31. PMID: 19537472.
  18. Watanabe H, Mohammad Abdul M, Kurabayashi T, Aoki H. Mandible size and morphology determined with CT on a premise of dental implant operation. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010; 32(4):343-9. doi: 10.1007/s00276-009-0570-3.
  19. Braut V, Bornstein MM, Kuchler U, Buser D. Bone dimensions in the posterior mandible: a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Part 2--analysis of edentulous sites. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014; 34(5):639-47. doi: 10.11607/prd.1895.
  20. Venkatesh E, Elluru SV. Cone beam computed tomography: basics and applications in dentistry. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017; 51(3 Suppl 1):S102-S121. doi: 10.17096/jiufd.00289.
  21. Tepper G, Hofschneider UB, Gahleitner A, Ulm Computed tomographic diagnosis and localization of bone canals in the mandibular interforaminal region for prevention of bleeding complications during implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001; 16(1):68-72. PMID: 11280364.
  22. Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E. Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(5):503-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01672.x.
  23. Rajput BS, Mehta S, Parihar AS, Vyas T, Kaur P, Chansoria S. Assessment of lingual concavities in submandibular fossa region in patients requiring dental implants–a cone beam computed tomography J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(11):1329-1333.

 

Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences
Volume 29, Issue 1
January and February 2022
Pages 24-30

Home

Editorial Board

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Reviewers

Contact Us