EVALUATION OF INFRAORBITAL CANAL TYPES AND THEIR RELATION WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: A CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY STUDY

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 145 - 151, 30.06.2024

Aykağan Coşgunarslan Zeynep Firdevs Sönmez

Öz

Aim: This study aims to analyze infraorbital canal (IOC) types in patients with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) records and to investigate the potential relationship between adjacent structure variations such as mucosal thickening, Haller cells, sinus septa, middle turbinate pneumatization (MTP) and IOC types.
Methods: Bilateral evaluation of 197 CBCT records was conducted to assess mucosal thickening, Haller cells, sinus septa, middle turbinate pneumatization (MTP), and IOC types. IOC types were categorized into three classes based on their extent of protrusion into the maxillary sinus: type 1, entirely within the sinus roof; type 2, located below and adjacent to the sinus roof; and type 3, suspended from the sinus roof and descending into the sinus cavity.
Results: The distribution of IOC types was as follows: 67.5% for type 1, 22.6% for type 2, and 9.9% for type 3. No significant correlation was observed between IOC types and MTP, mucosal thickening, or the presence of Haller cells. However, a significant relationship was noted between Type 3 IOC and the presence of septa. The occurrence of septa in the maxillary sinus was 8.3% for type 1 IOCs, 13.5% for type 2 IOCs, and 43.6% for type 3 IOCs (p<0.001).
Conclusions: While the protrusion of the IOC into the maxillary sinus is relatively uncommon, a rate of 9.9% warrants attention. A significant relationship was detected between the presence of septa and the type 3 IOC. Examination of existing CBCT scans may offer valuable insights into IOC.

Anahtar Kelimeler

infraorbital canal, maxillary sinus, cone beam computed tomography

Kaynakça

• 1. Ference EH, Smith SS, Conley D, et al. Surgical anatomy and variations of the infraorbital nerve. The Laryngoscope. 2015;125:1296-1300.
• 2. Leo JT, Cassell MD, Bergman RA Variation in human infraorbital nerve, canal and foramen. Ann Anat. 1995;177:93-95.
• 3. Lee UY, Nam SH, Han SH, et al. Morphological characteristics of the infraorbital foramen and infraorbital canal using three-dimensional models. Surg Radiol Anat. 2006;28:115-120.
• 4. Haghnegahdar A, Khojastepour L, Naderi A Evaluation of infraorbital canal in cone beam computed tomography of maxillary sinus. J Dent. 2018;19:41.
• 5. Açar G, Özen KE, Güler İ, et al. Computed tomography evaluation of the morphometry and variations of the infraorbital canal relating to endoscopic surgery. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;84:713-721.
• 6. Lechuga L, Weidlic GA Cone Beam CT vs. Fan Beam CT: A Comparison of Image Quality and Dose Delivered Between Two Differing CT Imaging Modalities. Cureus. 2016;8:e778.
• 7. Yeung AWK, Hung KF, Li DTS, et al. The use of CBCT in evaluating the health and pathology of the maxillary sinus. Diagnostics. 2022;12:2819.
• 8. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106:106-114.
• 9. Aşantoğrol F, Coşgunarslan A The effect of anatomical variations of the sinonasal region on maxillary sinus volume and dimensions: a three-dimensional study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2023;88:118-127.
• 10. Özcan İ, Göksel S, Çakır-Karabaş H, et al. G CBCT analysis of haller cells: relationship with accessory maxillary ostium and maxillary sinus pathologies. Oral Radiol. 2021;37:502-506.
• 11. Kalabalık F, Aktaş T, Akan E, et al. Radiographic evaluation of infraorbital canal protrusion into maxillary sinus using cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2020;11.
• 12. Serindere G, Serindere M Cone beam computed tomographic evaluation of infraorbital canal protrusion into the maxillary sinus and its importance for endoscopic surgery. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2023;88:140-147.
• 13. Yenigun A, Gun C, Uysal II, et al. Radiological classification of the infraorbital canal and correlation with variants of neighboring structures. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273:139-144.
• 14. Fontolliet M, Bornstein MM, von Arx T Characteristics and dimensions of the infraorbital canal: a radiographic analysis using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Surg Radiol Anat. 2019;41:169-179. 15. English GM Otolaryngology: a textbook. (No Title) 1976).
• 16. Kazkayasi M, et al. Certain anatomical relations and the precise morphometry of the infraorbital foramen–canal and groove: an anatomical and cephalometric study. The Laryngoscope. 2001;111:609-614.
• 17. Olenczak JB, et al. Posttraumatic midface pain: clinical significance of the anterior superior alveolar nerve and canalis sinuosus. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;75:543-547.
• 18. Jungell P, Lindqvist C Paraesthesia of the infraorbital nerve following fracture of the zygomatic complex. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987;16:363-367.
• 19. Sakavicius D, Juodzbalys G, Kubilius R, et al. Investigation of infraorbital nerve injury following zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35:903-916.
• 20. Sakavicius D, Kubilius R, Sabalys G Post-traumatic infraorbital nerve neuropathy. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania). 2002;38:47-51.
• 21. Lawrence J, Poole M Mid-facial sensation following craniofacial surgery. Br J Plast Surg. 1992;45:519-522.
• 22. Ritter L, et al. Prevalence of pathologic findings in the maxillary sinus in cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111:634-640.
• 23. Papadopoulou AM, Chrysikos D, Samolis A, et al. Anatomical variations of the nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses: a systematic review. Cureus. 2021;13.
• 24. Papadopoulou AM, Bakogiannis N, Skrapari I, et al. Anatomical variations of the Sinonasal Area and their clinical impact on Sinus Pathology: a systematic review. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;26:491-498.