OBJECTIVES: To examine the presence and morphologic characteristics of bifid mandibular canals (BMCs) and retromolar foramens (RFs) using cone beam CT (CBCT) and to determine their visualization on panoramic radiographs (PANs). METHODS: A sample of 225 CBCT examinations was analysed for the presence of BMCs, as well as length, height, diameter and angle. The diameter of the RF was also determined. Subsequently, corresponding PANs were analysed to determine whether the BMCs and RFs were visible or not. RESULTS: The BMCs were observed on CBCT in 83 out of the 225 patients (36.8%). With respect to gender, statistically significant differences were found in the number of BMCs. There were also significant differences in anatomical characteristics of the types of BMCs. Only 37.8% of the BMCs and 32.5% of the RFs identified on CBCT were also visible on PANs. The diameter had a significant effect on the capability of PANs to visualize BMCs and RFs (B = 0.791, p = 0.035; B = 1.900, p = 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PANs are unable to sufficiently identify BMCs and RFs. The diameter of these anatomical landmarks represents a relevant factor for visualization on PANs. Pre-operative images using only PANs may lead to underestimation of the presence of BMCs and to surgical complications and anaesthetic failures, which could have been avoided. For true determination of BMCs, a CBCT device should be considered better than a PAN.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the presence and morphologic characteristics of bifid mandibular canals (BMCs) and retromolar foramens (RFs) using cone beam CT (CBCT) and to determine their visualization on panoramic radiographs (PANs). METHODS: A sample of 225 CBCT examinations was analysed for the presence of BMCs, as well as length, height, diameter and angle. The diameter of the RF was also determined. Subsequently, corresponding PANs were analysed to determine whether the BMCs and RFs were visible or not. RESULTS: The BMCs were observed on CBCT in 83 out of the 225 patients (36.8%). With respect to gender, statistically significant differences were found in the number of BMCs. There were also significant differences in anatomical characteristics of the types of BMCs. Only 37.8% of the BMCs and 32.5% of the RFs identified on CBCT were also visible on PANs. The diameter had a significant effect on the capability of PANs to visualize BMCs and RFs (B = 0.791, p = 0.035; B = 1.900, p = 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PANs are unable to sufficiently identify BMCs and RFs. The diameter of these anatomical landmarks represents a relevant factor for visualization on PANs. Pre-operative images using only PANs may lead to underestimation of the presence of BMCs and to surgical complications and anaesthetic failures, which could have been avoided. For true determination of BMCs, a CBCT device should be considered better than a PAN.
Authors: A Kuribayashi; H Watanabe; A Imaizumi; W Tantanapornkul; K Katakami; T Kurabayashi Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Letícia F Haas; Kamile Dutra; André Luís Porporatti; Luis A Mezzomo; Graziela De Luca Canto; Carlos Flores-Mir; Márcio Corrêa Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Mauricio Augusto Aquino Castro; Manuel Oscar Lagravere-Vich; Tânia Mara Pimenta Amaral; Mauro Henrique Guimaraes Abreu; Ricardo Alves Mesquita Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2015-12-28