Orthopantomography and cone-beam computed tomography for the relation of inferior alveolar nerve to the impacted mandibular third molars

Abstract

Context: Relation of inferior alveolar nerve to the impacted mandibular third molars (IMTMs). Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of seven specific radiographic signs of mandibular third molar root that are observed on orthopantomography (OPG) and to predict the proximity and the absence of corticalization between the mandibular canal and IMTM root on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Settings and Design: The present study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Raja Rajeswari Dental College and Hospital. Subjects and Methods: Data set of 30 panoramic images was retrieved between the year of 2015 and 2016 indicated for extraction of lower third molars. The sample consisted of 30 individuals, who underwent preoperative radiographic evaluation before the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars (IMTM). Patients aged above 18 years with any of the seven specific signs observed on the panoramic radiograph which includes darkening, deflection, narrowing of roots, bifid root apex, diversion, narrowing of canal and interruption in the white line of the canal were included in the study. If any of the above mentioned seven specific sign were present, the patient was subjected to CBCT. On the CBCT images, the canal was traced in three planes. The acquired images were assessed for the presence or absence of corticalization. Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used. Proportions were compared using the Chi-square test and Student's t -test. Results: Among the 4 subjects, diagnosed with an absence of corticalization, patients with isolated darkening of root P = 0.001 and patients with isolated interruption in white line P = 0.69. Patients with darkening of root in association with interruption in white lines on OPG showed the absence of corticalization on CBCT findings P = 0.001, respectively. Conclusions: This study showed the poor reliability of radiographic signs seen on OPG on predicting the proximity of third mandibular root with mandibular canal related to CBCT finding. Four were diagnosed with the absence of corticalization in CBCT findings.

Lower third molar inclusion associated with paraesthesia: A case report

“…Similar to our case, canal deviation and interruption of white lines were associated with loss of canal cortication on CBCT in a very recent study, indicating the sensory consequences of a direct contact between the roots and the mandibular canal which required further assessment prior to extraction ( 27 ). Contrary to another recent study ( 28 ), our case report showed good reliability of radiographic signs seen on OPG on predicting the proximity of the third mandibular root with the mandibular canal, when related to CBCT findings. These complications are considered profoundly serious both because of the medical and psychological sequalae, not to mention the possible legal consequences.…”

Comparison of Digital OPG and CBCT in Assessment of Risk Factors Associated with Inferior Nerve Injury during Mandibular Third Molar Surgery

“…Of all the images with two or more signs on OPG, darkening of roots in combination with interruption in the white line (2.3%) was noted in most of the cases. Similar findings were noted by Ghai and Choudhury, [ 8 ] Neves et al [ 10 ], and Saha et al [ 44 ].…”

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,…”