Study of Number, Shape, Size and Position of Mental Foramen in Bangladeshi Dry Adult Human Mandible

Determination of Sex by Morphometric Study of Dry Adult Human Mandible

“…The mean difference of the right and left sides in males (p=0.939) and females (p=0.557) was also not statistically significant. This result was consistent with the study of Kilarkaje et al and Hoque et al 20,22 The distance between the highest point of the mandibular head and mandibular foramen of both right sides (41.46 ± 4.05 mm versus 34.74 ± 4.14 mm; p<0.001) and left side (41.56 ± 4.04 mm versus 34.00 ± 3.52 mm; p<0.001) were longer in male compared to female. But,It had no statistically significant distinction ( p=0.815) in the distance measured between the mandibular foramen on the right side (38.64 ± 5.…”

“…The mean discrepancy between the right side and left side in males (p=0.744) and females (p=0.690) was not statistically significant. We found almost similar findings in other studies 13,14,19,20 but dissimilar to Ennes et al 15 On the right side, The demarcation between the mandibular foramen and mandibular angle was 26.59 ± 3.32 mm in males and 17.52 ± 5.45 mm in females; the difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). On the left side, the space between mandibular angle and mandibular foramen was 26.29 ± 3.92 mm in males and 17.70 ± 4.70 mm in females; the difference was statistically significant (p<0.001).…”

“…The results of this study were also in agreement with those of other studies. [16][17][18][19][20] The distance between symphysis menti and mandibular foramen of both right side (79.08 ± 4.35 mm versus 74.67 ± 5.45 mm; p<0.001) and left side (78.98 ± 5.13 mm versus 73.71 ± 5.33 mm; p<0.001) were longer in male compared to female. But, the distance between symphysis menti and mandibular foramen of the right(77.23 ± 5.14 mm) and left side (76.77 ± 5.79 mm) did not differ statistically significant (p=0.677).…”

Variation in accessory mental foramen frequency and number in extant hominoids

“…He differentiated this type of foramen from an accessory mental foramen, referring to it as a mandibular incisive foramen. Most, including all previous studies on dry mandibles of non‐human primates, use the term accessory mental foramen for any additional foramen, regardless of size or connectivity to the mandibular canal, on the lateral corpus in the vicinity of the mental foramen, whether it is an exit point for an accessory mental nerve or a re‐entry point for the mental nerve and/or blood vessels (Budhiraja, Rastogi, Lalwani, Goel, & Bose, 2013; Gupta & Soni, 2012; Haktanir, Ilgaz, & Turhan‐Haktanir, 2010; Hanihara & Ishida, 2001; Hoque, Ara, Begum, Kamal, & Momen, 2013; Imada et al, 2012; Kaufman, Serman, & Wang, 2000; Lam, Koong, Kruger, & Tennant, 2019; Montagu, 1954; Patil, Matsuda, & Okano, 2013; Prabodha & Nanayakkara, 2006; Riesenfeld, 1956; Sawyer, Kiely, & Pyle, 1998; Shukla, Gupta, Hussein, Hussain, & Singh, 2015; Simonton, 1923; Singh & Srivastav, 2010a; Sisman et al, 2012; Sutton, 1974; Udhaya, Saraladevi, & Sridhar, 2013; Zarei, Ebrahimi, Dashti, Pourentezari, & Karizbodagh, 2014). This study will use this traditional terminology and definition of accessory mental foramen in order for comparisons to be made, particularly with studies on dry mandibles in the anthropological literature and studies where access to a computed tomography (CT) scanner to determine the connectivity of any accessory mental foramen is not feasible.…”

The clinical anatomy of accessory mental nerves and foramina

“…The incidence of AMFs ranges from 2.0% to 13.0%, as detected using radiological images, gross anatomical dissection, and observation of dry skulls (Roopa et al, 2002;Prabodha and Nanayakkara, 2006;Singh and Srivastav, 2010;Singh and Srivastav, 2011;Gupta and Soni, 2012;Udhaya et al, 2013;Zarei et al, 2013;Shukla et al, 2015). Since the development of three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) it has become easier to detect AMFs, and many researchers have reported details of them such as location, size, number, and relationship to the mandibular canal (Gershenson et al, 1986;Roopa et al, 2002;Prabodha and Nanayakkara, 2006;Al-Khateeb et al, 2007;Katakami et al, 2008;Haktanır et al, 2010;Singh and Srivastav, 2010;Naitoh et al, 2011;Oliveira-Santos et al, 2011;Singh and Srivastav, 2011;Gupta and Soni, 2012;Kalender et al, 2012;Sisman et al, 2012;G € oregen et al, 2013;Orhan et al, 2013;Udhaya et al, 2013;Zarei et al, 2013;Hoque et al, 2014;Imada et al, 2014;Neves et al, 2014;Paraskevas et al, 2014). However, clinicians are also interested in information about the most frequent sites, whether AMFs can be detected on panoramic images, whether AMNs that derive from the AMFs can be injured, and what happens in such an event.…”