Descriptive study of mandibular canal visibility: morphometric and densitometric analysis for digital panoramic radiographs

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the visibility of the mandibular canal (MC) morphology in different jaw dental segments (JDSs) in relation to morphometric and densitometric parameters on digital panoramic radiographs (DPRs). Methods: 32 DPRs (155 JDSs) were selected randomly after retrieval. MC visibility in conjunction with superior and inferior border visibility was scored on a 5-point scale in four places on the JDS-that is, for the medial, distal, superior and inferior MC parts. Morphometric and densitometric analyses were made horizontally and vertically in the JDS region. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U test and additional tests were performed. Results: There was no significant difference in MC visibility for the superior, inferior, medial and distal parts of the JDSs. Statistically significant (p , 0.05) differences were identified between particular visibility scores of the superior and inferior MC borders. In 22.0-24.7% of JDSs, the superior MC border was not visible, more than twice as often as the inferior MC border was not visible (9.1-10.2%). The visibility of superior and inferior MC borders in JDSs was not related to the morphometric or densitometric assessment parameters, or to age, gender, JDS location, condition or the visibility of neighbouring MC parts or contralateral JDSs. Conclusions: DPRs failed to provide MC visibility based on a single factor. Particular differences were identified between the levels of visibility of the superior and inferior MC borders. More advanced radiological investigation methods could be required for the evaluation of about 25% of JDSs when superior MC border identification is obligatory.

Change in the Dominant Side of Chewing as a Serious Factor for Adjusting the Prophylaxis Strategy for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis of Bounded Lateral Defects

“…At the same time, there are limitations due to the lack of long-term studies or clinical trials, especially in relation to the prediction of the life cycle of such prostheses. 41 Anyway, Diment et al 8 show in a large meta-analysis that out of 350 evidence-based clinical trials comparing the results of 3D printing for clinical purposes using routine technologies 58.3% of studies were in the oral and maxillofacial surgery field, which included dentistry and orthopaedic surgery of the jaw, face and skull, and those covering the musculoskeletal system (23.7%) made up the second group. It was concluded that the 3D-printed devices outperformed their conventional comparators.…”

“…At the same time, there are limitations due to the lack of long-term studies or clinical trials, especially in relation to the prediction of the life cycle of such prostheses. 41 …”

Microsurgical Anatomy of the Superior Wall of the Mandibular Canal and Surrounding Structures: Suggestion for New Classifications for Dental Implantology

“…In 43.7%, the mandibular canal was not corticalized (Shokri et al, ). Kubilius et al () classified visibility of the mandibular canal into 1 (not visible) to 5 (good visibility) using panoramic radiography. As mentioned above, visibility of the mandibular canal varies in studies and might be due to variant trabecular patterns or tooth presence (Noma et al, ).…”

Diagnostic ability of limited volume cone beam computed tomography with small voxel size in identifying the superior and inferior walls of the mandibular canal

“…Although there have been no detailed studies using CBCT, poorer visualization of the superior wall compared with the inferior wall has been reported by some studies using conventional radiographs or medical CT images [ 19 – 21 ]. Whether the wall of the mandibular canal is visible or invisible on images largely depends on the presence or absence of corticalization of the wall surrounding the neurovascular bundle.…”