CBCT Evaluation of the Vital Mandibular Interforaminal Anatomical Structures

Ankush Puri; Pradhuman Verma; Princy Mahajan; Amit Bansal; Shivani Kohli; Samar Ali Faraz

doi:10.4103/ams.ams_144_19

CBCT Evaluation of the Vital Mandibular Interforaminal Anatomical Structures

Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jan-Jun;10(1):149-157. doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_144_19. Epub 2020 Jun 8.

Authors

Ankush Puri¹, Pradhuman Verma¹, Princy Mahajan¹, Amit Bansal², Shivani Kohli², Samar Ali Faraz³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Surendera Dental College and Research Institute, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, India.
² PG Student, Surendera Dental College and Research Institute, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, India.
³ Private Practitioner, Surendera Dental College and Research Institute, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, India.

Abstract

Background: Oral implants are considered safe in the mandibular anterior region, but complications often occur if vital structures such as inferior alveolar nerve, mandibular incisive canal (MIC), anterior mental loop (AL), or mental foramen (MF) are not properly identified.

Aim: The aim was to evaluate vital anatomical structures in the mandibular interforaminal region and to investigate sexual dimorphism and differences with respect to left and right side regions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods: Eighty CBCT scans (forty male and forty female) were analyzed for MF position and shape, presence and measurement of AL and MIC (both in mm), emergence patterns of mandibular canal, and symmetry of MF and AL. A pilot study was conducted on five patients to determine interobserver reliability among two oral and maxillofacial radiologists, considered for interpretation of CBCT images. All the scans were taken by CS 9300, CBCT machine adjusted at 80 kVp, 15 mA, voxel size 0.3 × 0.3 × 0.3, and field of view of 10 × 5 (mandible only). The acquired images were reconstructed into multiplanar views (axial, panoramic, and cross-sectional) for evaluation.

Results: The mean age of the study population was 42.64 ± 16.22 years, with males noted with slightly higher age. Position 4 of MF (below the apex of the second premolar) was noted the most on the right side, whereas position 3 (between the first and second premolars) was noted on the left side, with 75% of symmetrical MF position. The oval-shaped MF was most common among both genders and sides. The prevalence of MIC was noted in 93.75% of patients with a mean length of 12.09 ± 5.95 mm. The prevalence of AL was 53.13%, with a mean length of 1.07 ± 1.42 mm. No statistically significant sexual dimorphism (P > 0.05) was found between genders or sides for all the evaluated interforaminal parameters.

Conclusion: CBCT evaluation of vital anatomical structures needs to be elicited before planning an interforaminal placement of implants, and no sexual dimorphism was found regarding them.

Keywords: Anterior mental loop; inferior alveolar nerve; mandibular incisive canal; mental foramen.