David C Yu1, Bernard D Friedland, Nadeem Y Karimbux, Kevin A Guze. 1. Private practice, San Diego, CA, USA; assistant professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; associate professor, assistant dean of Dental Education, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; instructor, Division of Periodontology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Within the fossa of the submaxillary gland (FSG), there is a portion superior to the mandibular canal (SMCP) that can affect implant placement. Our study evaluated this specific portion's prevalence and its average dimensional difference between the first and the second molar regions in a dental implant population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 112 patients' mandibular cone beam computerized tomography scans, the SMCPs of the FSG's horizontal and vertical dimensions in the first and second molar positions on both sides were digitally measured. RESULTS: The SMCP of the FSG is larger in the second molar region than in the first molar region in >90% of cases. Average differences were 2.3 mm horizontally and 2.7 mm vertically. Gender difference and intraindividual's left/right variation were both clinically less significant in magnitude than the difference between the molar regions. Taking the 2-mm safety margin above the mandibular canal into consideration, the SMCP of the FSG remained high in prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The SMCP of the FSG may complicate implant placement more in the second molar region than in the first. Implant planning in the posterior mandibular molar regions should include a SMCP of the FSG evaluation using computer tomography especially in the second molar region.
PURPOSE: Within the fossa of the submaxillary gland (FSG), there is a portion superior to the mandibular canal (SMCP) that can affect implant placement. Our study evaluated this specific portion's prevalence and its average dimensional difference between the first and the second molar regions in a dental implant population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 112 patients' mandibular cone beam computerized tomography scans, the SMCPs of the FSG's horizontal and vertical dimensions in the first and second molar positions on both sides were digitally measured. RESULTS: The SMCP of the FSG is larger in the second molar region than in the first molar region in >90% of cases. Average differences were 2.3 mm horizontally and 2.7 mm vertically. Gender difference and intraindividual's left/right variation were both clinically less significant in magnitude than the difference between the molar regions. Taking the 2-mm safety margin above the mandibular canal into consideration, the SMCP of the FSG remained high in prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The SMCP of the FSG may complicate implant placement more in the second molar region than in the first. Implant planning in the posterior mandibular molar regions should include a SMCP of the FSG evaluation using computer tomography especially in the second molar region.