Characteristics of intrabony nerve canals in mandibular interforaminal region by using cone‐beam computed tomography and a recommendation of safe zone for implant and bone harvesting

Abstract

The safe zone recommended for implant surgery is 4 mm anterior and 8 mm inferior to the mental foramen, and 10 mm above the inferior margin of mandible. The chin bone should be harvested at least 10 mm below the tooth apices along with a limited depth of 4 mm.

Mandibular incisive canal-related prevalence, morphometric parameters, and implant placement implications: a multicenter study of 847 CBCT scans

“…Negative collinearity between age and the distance between the MIC and the alveolar cortex is an interesting finding, which means that, as age increases, the referred distance tends to decrease. Clinically, this information affects the size of implant choice; therefore, a distance of 10 mm to the mandible inferior border is maintained (13). A negative correlation between age and MIC distance to the buccal cortex in its initial portion is in accordance with previous studies (15,21), which proposed a minimum distance of 3 mm as a safe distance for graft removal procedures.…”

“…When comparing our data with those in previous studies, our findings were smaller than the distance of 4.65 mm reported by Kong et al (10). Yang et al (13) recommended that implants in the interforaminal region should be inserted 10 mm above the inferior border of the mandible, which was also observed in the present study. Negative collinearity between age and the distance between the MIC and the alveolar cortex is an interesting finding, which means that, as age increases, the referred distance tends to decrease.…”

“…However, this length is higher than the values for the right (7.1 mm) and left (6.6 mm) sides reported by Pires et al (18). In addition, previous studies have reported relatively greater mean lengths for the MIC, including 9.97 mm (13) The smaller diameter and poorer corticalization of the MIC compared with the mandibular canal make its visibility a challenge. In accordance with findings from the present study, the MIC exhibited an inferior and lingual path as it emerged from the mental foramen to the medium sagittal plane, with an increasing distance to the alveolar bone cortex, and assumed a buccal position.…”

“…Lim et al (19) reported that MIC deviated lingually from its starting point towards its endpoint in the mandible. Yang et al (13) found that in the canine region, there was a decrease in the distance of the MIC to the lingual cortex. Angulated implants in this region may increase the risk for life-threatening hemorrhage because, in the canine region, the sublingual artery follows a horizontal course to the direction of the drill used during the surgical procedure, thus increasing the risk for laceration or transection (20).…”

“…Previous studies using CBCT have reported a high prevalence of the MIC (10,11), and have emphasized the significant variation in the morphology of this anatomical structure and other anatomical structures of the interforaminal region (12). These variations in MIC image presentation can be attributed to different study populations, image acquisition protocols, and even to small study samples (13). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the epidemiological and morphometric features of the MIC using CBCT in a large multicenter sample.…”