ÇUKUROVA POPÜLASYONUNDA BIFID MANDIBULAR KANAL PREVALANSI: BIR KIBT ÇALIŞMASI

Year 2022, , 287 - 293, 26.12.2022

Berkhas Tumani , Hazal Duyan , Burcu Evlice

https://doi.org/10.34108/eujhs.934763

Abstract

Bifid mandibular kanal (BMK) gibi mandibular kanal varyasyonlarının bilinmesi, cerrahi prosedürler sırasında meydana gelebilecek sinir hasarına bağlı komplikasyonları önlemeye yardımcı olabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) kullanarak Çukurova alt popülasyonunda BMK prevalansını incelemektir.Beş yüz hastanın KIBT görüntüleri BMK’ları değerlendirmek için retrospektif olarak incelendi. BMK'lar Naitoh sınıflandırması kullanılarak retromolar kanal, ileri kanal, dental kanal ve bukkolingual kanal olarak kategorize edildi. İstatistiksel analiz, IBM SPSS yazılım versiyonu 20.0 kullanılarak yapıldı. Veriler daha sonra sağ-sol taraf ve cinsiyete göre karşılaştırıldı. Bifidmandibular kanallar 500 hastanın 109’unda (%21,8) ve 1000 tarafın 118’inde (%11,8) izlendi. İleri kanal en sık görülen tipti (%31,4), bunu dental kanal (%29,7), retromolar kanal (%26,3) ve bukkolingual kanal (%12,7) izledi. Bifid mandibular kanalların dağılımında cinsiyet ve sağ-sol taraf açısından anlamlı bir fark bulunamamıştır (p>0.05).Bu çalışmanın sonuçları BMK prevalansının panoramik radyografi kullanılan çalışmalara göre daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. KIBT, BMK'ın ayrıntılı değerlendirmesi için etkili bir yöntem olarak önerilmektedir.

Keywords

Bifid mandibular kanal, Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi, Prevalans

Supporting Institution

YOK

Project Number

YOK

Thanks

YOK

PREVALANCE OF BIFID MANDIBULAR CANAL IN CUKUROVA SUBPOPULATION: A CBCT STUDY

Abstract

An awareness of mandibular canal variations such as bifidmandibularcanal (BMC) may help prevent complications due to nevre damage that can ocur during surgical procedures. The aim of this study is to examine the prevalence of BMC in Cukurova sub population using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). CBCT images of 500 patients were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate BMCs. BMCs were categorized as retromolar canal, forward canal, dental canal, and buccolingual canal using the Naitoh classification. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS software version 20.0. The data were then compared according to right-left sides and gender. BMCs were observed in 109 of 500 patients (21.8%) and 118 of 1000 sides (11.8%). The forward canal was the most common type (31.4%), followed by the dental canal (29.7%), the retromolar canal (26.3%), and the buccolingual canal (12.7%). There was no significant difference in the distribution of BMCs in terms of gender and right-left side (p>0.05). The results of this study show that the BMC prevalence is higher than the studies using panoramic radiography. CBCT is recommended as an effective method for detaile devaluation of BMC.

Keywords

Bifid mandibular canal, Cone-beam computed tomography, Prevalence

Project Number

YOK

References

• Von Arx T, Bornstein MM. The bifid mandibular canal in three-dimensional radiography: morphologic and quantitative characteristics. Swiss Dent J 2021; 131(1):10-28.
• White SC, Pharoah M. Principles and interpretation. St Louis 2014; 431-433.
• Chávez-Lomeli M, Mansilla Lory J, Pompa J, Kjaer I. The human mandibular canal arises from three separate canals innervating different tooth groups. Journal of Dental Research 1996; 75(8):1540-1544.
• Kang J-H, Lee K-S, Oh M-G, et al. The incidence and configuration of the bifid mandibular canal in Koreans by using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging science in dentistry 2014; 44(1):53.
• Langlais RP, Broadus R, Glass BJ. Bifid mandibular canals in panoramic radiographs. Journal of the American Dental Association 1985; 110(6):923-926.
• Nortjé C, Farman A, Grotepass F. Variations in the normal anatomy of the inferior dental (mandibular) canal: a retrospective study of panoramic radiographs from 3612 routine dental patients. British Journal of Oral Surgery 1977; 15(1):55-63.
• Naitoh M, Hiraiwa Y, Aimiya H, Ariji E. Observation of bifid mandibular canal using cone-beam computerized tomography. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2009; 24(1).
• Orhan K, Aksoy S, Bilecenoglu B, et al. Evaluation of bifid mandibular canals with cone-beam computed tomography in a Turkish adult population: a retrospective study. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 2011; 33(6):501-507.
• Grover P, Lorton L. Bifid mandibular nerve as a possible cause of inadequate anesthesia in the mandible. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1983; 41(3):177-179.
• Sanchis J, Peñarrocha M, Soler F. Bifid mandibular canal. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 2003; 61(4):422-424.
• Zografos J, Kolokoudias M, Papadakis E. The types of the mandibular canal. Hell Period Stomat Gnat hopathoprosopike Cheir 1990; 5(1):17-20.
• Naitoh M, Hiraiwa Y, Aimiya H, et al. Bifidmandibular canal in Japanese. Implant dentistry 2007; 16(1):24-32.
• Okumuş Ö, Dumlu A. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canal according to gender, type and side. Journal of dental sciences 2019; 14(2):126-133.
• Zhou X, Gao X, Zhang J. Bifid mandibular canals: CBCT assessment and macroscopic observation. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 2020; 42:1073-1079.
• Nithya J, Aswath N. Assessing the Prevalence and Morphological Characteristics of Bifid Mandibular Canal Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography–A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Clinical Imaging Science 2020; 10.
• WamasingP, Deepho C, Watanabe H, Hayashi Y, Sakamoto J, Kurabayashi T. Imaging the Bifid Mandibular Canal Using High Resolution MRI. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2019;48(3):20180305.
• Deepho, C., Watanabe, H., Kotaki, S., Sakamoto, J., Sumi, Y., & Kurabayashi, T. Utility Of Fusion Volumetric Images From Computed Tomography And Magnetic Resonance Imaging For Localizing The Mandibular Canal. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2017; 46(3), 20160383.
• Rouas P, Delbos Y, Nancy J. Pseudo multiple and enlarged mandibular canals: the evidence-based response of cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofacial radiology 2006; 35(3):217-218.
• Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Visualisation of the mandibular canal by different radiographic techniques. Clinical oral implants research 1992; 3(2):90-97.
• Klinge B, Petersson A, Maly P. Location of the mandibular canal: comparison of macroscopic findings, conventional radiography, and computed tomography. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1989; 4(4).
• Yang X, Lyu C, Zou D. Bifid mandibular canals incidence and anatomical variations in the population of Shanghai area by cone beam computed tomography. Journal of computer assisted tomography 2017; 41(4):535-540.
• Villaça-Carvalho MFL, Manhães LRC, de Moraes MEL, de Castro Lopes SLP. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canals by cone beam computed tomography. Oral and maxillofacial surgery 2016; 20(3):289-294.
• Rashsuren O, Choi J-W, Han W-J, Kim E-K. Assessment of bifid and trifid mandibular canals using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging science in dentistry 2014; 44(3):229.
• Lew K, Townsend G. Failure to obtain adequate anaesthesia associated with a bifid mandibular canal: a case report. Australian dental journal 2006; 51(1):86-90.