Relationship of the Presence of Lingual Concavity and Mandibular Canal Location: A Retrospective Two-Center Study

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the possible relationship between the position of the mandibular canal (MC) on digital panoramic images (PI) and the presence of a lingual concavity (LC) on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scans in two different populations.
Materials and methods: In this retrospective study, the digital archives of a private imaging center in Turkey and at The Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA) in Netherlands patients who had both panoramic and CBCT images, taken between January 2016 and June 2016 due to various indications. A total of 248 patients were assessed. MC position was defined on digital panoramic radiographs; the presence of LC was assessed on CBCT images. In all statistical methods, p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The Mc Nemar test and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis (AZ), were performed for data analysis.
Results: Considering all patients, the presence of LC was 28% and 31% for the left and right premolar regions and 75% and 77% for the left and right molar regions, respectively. There was no significant difference between right and left sides and between the Turkish and Dutch populations with respect to the presence of LC. Considering all patients, the presence of a LC was higher in the molar region than in the premolar region for both right and left sides with a statistical significance (p<0.001).
Conclusions: The higher percentages of LC in the molar region in both populations suggests that a preoperative local CBCT assessment is justified specifically before implant placement in the mandibular molar region. The location of the MC on the PI was not a very strong indication of the presence of a LC.

Keywords

• Anatomy,
• Cone beam computed tomography
• Lingual concavity,
• Mandibular canal,
• Panoramic radiography

Lingual Konkavite Varliği ve Mandibular Kanal Lokasyonu İlişkisi: İki Merkezli Retrospektif Çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Dijital panoramik görüntülerde (PG) mandibular kanalın (MK) konumu ile Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi (KIBT) taramalarında lingual konkavlığın (LK) varlığı arasındaki olası ilişkiyi iki farklı popülasyonda değerlendirmek.
Gereç ve yöntem: Bu retrospektif çalışmada, Türkiye'deki özel bir görüntüleme merkezi ve Hollanda'da Amsterdam Diş Hekimliği Akademik Merkezi’nde (ADAM) hem panoramik hem de KIBT görüntüleri olan hastaların Ocak 2016-Haziran 2016 tarihleri arasında çeşitli endikasyonlar nedeniyle çekilmiş dijital arşivleri incelenmiştir. Toplam 248 hasta değerlendirildi. MK pozisyonu, dijital panoramik radyograflarda tanımlandı. KIBT görüntülerinde LK varlığı değerlendirildi. Tüm istatistiksel yöntemlerde p değeri <0,05 istatistiksel olarak anlamlı kabul edildi. Veri analizi için Mc Nemar testi ve alıcı işletim karekteristiği (ROC), eğri analizi (AZ) yapıldı.
Bulgular: Tüm hastalar dikkate alındığında sol ve sağ premolar bölgelerinde LK varlığı sırasıyla %28 ve %31, sol ve sağ molar bölgelerinde sırasıyla %75 ve %77 idi. LK varlığı açısından sağ ve sol taraflar arasında ve Türk ve Hollanda popülasyonları arasında anlamlı bir fark yoktu. Tüm hastalar dikkate alındığında, molar bölgede hem sağ hem de sol taraf için premolar bölgeye göre LK varlığı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (p<0.001).
Sonuçlar: Her iki popülasyonda molar bölgedeki daha yüksek LK yüzdeleri, mandibular molar bölgeye implant yerleştirmeden önce ameliyat öncesi bir lokal KIBT değerlendirmesinin özellikle doğrulandığını düşündürmektedir. MK'nın PG üzerindeki konumu, bir LK'nin varlığının çok güçlü bir göstergesi değildi.

Keywords

• Anatomi,
• Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi,
• Lingual konkavite,
• Mandibular kanal,
• Panoramik radyografi

References

1. 1. Nickenig HJ, et al. Lingual concavities in the mandible: A morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43(2):254-59.
2. 2. Chan HL, et al. Cross-sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Impt Res 2011;22(2):201-6.
3. 3. Bodart L, et al. Assessing the frequency of deep lingual concavities in 826 posterior mandible sockets. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2020;48(11):1045-51.
4. 4. Kamburoğlu K, et al. CBCT quantitative evaluation of mandibular lingual concavities in dental implant patients. Surg Radiol Anat 2015;37(11):1209-15
5. 5.Watanabe H, et al. Mandible size and morphology determined with CT on a premise of dental implant operation. Surg Radiol Anat 2010;32(4):343-49.
6. 6.Tyndall DA, et al. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;113(6):817-26.
7. 7. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. Mosby/Elsevier 2014:524-41
8. 8. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am 2008; 52(4):707-30.

9. 9. Kamburoğlu K. Use of dentomaxillofacial cone beam computed tomography in dentistry. World J Radiol 2015;7(6):128-30.
10. 10. Pauwels R, et al. Technical aspects of dental cone-beam CT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(1):120140224.
11. 11. European Commission; Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology (Evidence- based guidelines). Radiation Protection No172 2012;26-8.
12. 12. Parnia F, et al. Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109(1):e32–6.
13. 13. Shiratori LN, et al. Measurement of buccal bone volume of dental implants by means of cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Impl Res 2012;23(7):797–804.
14. 14. Aytac O, Kurtdas MC. Social origins of health-disease and health sociology. Firat University Journal of Social Sciences 2015;25(1):231-50.
15. 15. Fleiss JL, Levin BA, Paik MC. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions (2nd edn). New York: John Wiley, 1981.
16. 16. Han, X. On Statistical Measures for Data Quality Evaluation. J Geogr Inf Syst 2020;12(3):178-187.
17. 17. Haj Yahya B, Chaushu G, Hamzani Y. Computed tomography for the assessment of the potential risk following implant placement in fresh extraction sites in the posterior mandible. J Oral Implantol 2021;47(1):2-8.
18. 18. Angelopoulos C, et al. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the MC as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66(10):2130-35.
19. 19. Gahleitner A, Watzek G, Imhof H. Dental CT: imaging technique, anatomy, and pathologic conditions of the jaws. Eur Radiol 2003;13(2):366-76.
20. 20. Herranz-Aparicio J, et al. Retrospective study of the bone morphology in the posterior mandibular region. Evaluation of the prevalence and the degree of lingual concavity and their possible complications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2016;21(6):e731-36.
21. 21. Priyadarshini SR, et al. Qualitative and morphological evaluation of the mandibular bone using computed tomography. Indian J Dent Res 2020;31(6):899-903.