An analysis of the first and second mandibular molar roots proximity to the inferior alveolar canal and cortical plates using cone beam computed tomography among the Saudi population

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship of the first and second mandibular molar roots to the inferior alveolar canal (IAC) and cortical plates using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the Saudi population. Methods: Scans of 60 patients were collected retrospectively from the dental hospital database in King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Measurements of the right and left first and second mandibular molars for each dental root and the mandibular bone thickness were determined. The position of the IAC was estimated using axial, coronal, and sagittal views. Three examiners performed the measurements independently. Results: The mean distance between the root apices of the mandibular molars and the IAC ranged from 1.68-4.79 mm, whereas the mean distance from the outer surface of the buccal cortical plate to the buccal root surface ranged from 2.33-6.72 mm. Similarly, the mean distance from the outer surface of the lingual cortical plate to the lingual root surface ranged from 2.62-4.80 mm. Finally, the mean distance from the outer surface of the lingual cortical plate to the outer surface of the buccal cortical plate was 11.93-13.19 mm. Conclusion: The measurements reported in this study may be of value to practitioners treating Saudi patients, as they need to be familiar with the distance of the mandibular first and second molars in relation to the IAC and surrounding cortical plates to accurately assess and plan endodontic surgeries, surgical extractions, and implant placements.

Biometric analysis of apical surgery-related anatomy of mandibular first molars: a cone-beam computed tomography study in a Mongoloid population

“… 26 The distance from buccal bone to the mesial and distal roots was found to be shortest in the Iranian population, whereas the distance from buccal bone to the distal root in the Turkish population was greatest among these populations. 4 , 5 , 26 These discrepancies are likely due to ethnic genetic differences, varying bone thicknesses, and distinctive topographical and anatomical relationships. 27 In all of these reports, the distance from the buccal bone to the distal root was longer than to the mesial root in two-rooted MFMs.…”

“… 3 – 5 , 25 Few studies have evaluated the bony structures around MFMs in different populations. 4 , 5 , 26 In these studies, the distance from the buccal bone to each root at the resection level in two-rooted MFMs was reported in Iranian, Turkish, and Saudi populations. Our study evaluated the distance from the buccal bone to each root at the resection level for two-rooted and three-rooted MFMs.…”

Mandibular canal vs. inferior alveolar canal: Evidence‐based terminology analysis

“…The most recent, consecutive 50 articles containing “inferior alveolar canal” or “inferior alveolar nerve canal” were included (defined as the IAC/IANC group) (Adibi, Shahidi, Nikanjam, Paknahad, & Ranjbar, 2017; Afsa & Rahmati, 2017; Al‐Ekrish et al, 2018; Al‐Ekrish et al, 2020; Ali, Mosleh, & Shawky, 2018; Aljarbou, Aldosimani, Althumairy, Alhezam, & Aldawsari, 2019; Arbel et al, 2019; Atef & Mounir, 2018; Česaitienė, Česaitis, Junevičius, & Venskutonis, 2017; Y. Chen, Liu, Pei, Liu, & Pan, 2018; Clark, Barbu, Lorean, Mijiritsky, & Levin, 2017; Demirel & Akbulut, 2020; Dutra et al, 2019; Elkhateeb & Awad, 2018; Ghai & Choudhury, 2018; Goller Bulut & Köse, 2018; Gumusok, Alkurt, Museyibov, & Ucok, 2016; He, Wang, Hu, & Liu, 2019; Ishii, Abe, Moro, Yokomizo, & Kobayashi, 2017; Kablan, Abu‐Sobeh, Lorean, & Levin, 2020; Khojastepour, Khaghaninejad, Hasanshahi, Forghani, & Ahrari, 2019; Kubota, Imai, Nakazawa, & Uzawa, 2020; S. Lee, Lee, Kim, & Nam, 2019; Liu, Sidell, Huon, & Torre, 2018; Luangchana, Pornprasertsuk‐Damrongsri, Kitisubkanchana, & Wongchuensoontorn, 2019; Mortazavi, Baharvand, & Rezaeifar, 2018; Mortazavi, Baharvand, Safi, & Behnaz, 2019; Mortazavi, Baharvand, Safi, Dalaie, et al, 2019; Patil, Pai, Vineetha, Rajagopal, & Dkhar, 2019; Patrick, Birur, Gurushanth, Raghavan, & Gurudath, 2017; Pour, Sedaghati, & Shamshiri, 2020; Prakash et al, 2018; Qi et al, 2019; Rytkönen & Ventä, 2018; Saha, Kedarnath, & Singh, 2019; Şahin, Odabaşı, Demiralp, Kurşun‐Çakmak, & Aliyev, 2019; Sharifi, Beshkar, Mobayeni, & Hasheminasab, 2018; Shokry et al, 2019; Sirin, Yildirimturk, Horasan, & Guven, 2020; Tabrizi et al, 2019; Tachinami, Tomihara, Fujiwara, Nakamori, & Noguchi, 2017; Tudtiam et al, 2019; Uchida, Motoyoshi, Namura, & Shimizu, 2017; Uzun, Sumer, & Sumer,…”

Comment on: An analysis of the first and second mandibular molar roots proximity to the inferior alveolar canal and cortical plates using cone beam computed tomography among Saudi population

“…I have read with interest the study by Aljarbour et al1 The reported data are of high importance for dental practitioners who perform dental extractions, root canal treatments, and place dental implants on regular basis to avoid potential damage to the inferior alveolar nerve. However, several points have tracked my attention while reading this paper as follows:…”