O Rapado-González1, J A Suárez-Quintanilla2, X L Otero-Cepeda3, A Fernández-Alonso1, M M Suárez-Cunqueiro4. 1. Department of Stomatology, Medicine and Dentistry School, University of Santiago de Compostela, C/Entrerrios S/N, 15872, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 2. Department of Anatomy, Medicine and Dentistry School, University of Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain. 3. Biostatistical Department, Medicine and Dentistry School, University of Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain. 4. Department of Stomatology, Medicine and Dentistry School, University of Santiago de Compostela, C/Entrerrios S/N, 15872, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. mariamercedes.suarez@usc.es.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze greater palatine canal (GPC) dimensions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, and to evaluate the position of the greater palatine foramen (GPF) with respect to various landmarks selected in relation to dental status. METHODS: This study included 150 CBCTs. Axial slices were used to determine the position and dimensions of the GPF. Sagittal slices were used to assess GPC length. Reference lines were established to evaluate the GPC diameter in sagittal and coronal slices. RESULTS: From the 77 GPF analyzed, 76 were located on level 2. Average posterior GPF distance was 6.59 ± 3.27 mm on right side and 7.35 ± 3.40 mm on left side. Several measurements to determine the position and dimensions of the GPF presented significant values (p ≤ 0.05). GPC length was 12.31 ± 1.96 mm on right side and 12.52 ± 2.15 mm on left side, statistically significant differences were detected between genders only on right canal (p ≤ 0.004). Sagittal and coronal reference lines presented significantly higher values for men except for the S3 (p < 0.062) and C1 (p < 0.067) in the left GPC. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is a useful tool for evaluating GPC morphometrically in the three anatomical slices. The sagittal nasal plane and posterior nasal plane are two intraoral anatomical landmarks for the location of the GPF. Their scant variability allows accurate identification of GPFs in both dentate as well as edentulous patients.
PURPOSE: To analyze greater palatine canal (GPC) dimensions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, and to evaluate the position of the greater palatine foramen (GPF) with respect to various landmarks selected in relation to dental status. METHODS: This study included 150 CBCTs. Axial slices were used to determine the position and dimensions of the GPF. Sagittal slices were used to assess GPC length. Reference lines were established to evaluate the GPC diameter in sagittal and coronal slices. RESULTS: From the 77 GPF analyzed, 76 were located on level 2. Average posterior GPF distance was 6.59 ± 3.27 mm on right side and 7.35 ± 3.40 mm on left side. Several measurements to determine the position and dimensions of the GPF presented significant values (p ≤ 0.05). GPC length was 12.31 ± 1.96 mm on right side and 12.52 ± 2.15 mm on left side, statistically significant differences were detected between genders only on right canal (p ≤ 0.004). Sagittal and coronal reference lines presented significantly higher values for men except for the S3 (p < 0.062) and C1 (p < 0.067) in the left GPC. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is a useful tool for evaluating GPC morphometrically in the three anatomical slices. The sagittal nasal plane and posterior nasal plane are two intraoral anatomical landmarks for the location of the GPF. Their scant variability allows accurate identification of GPFs in both dentate as well as edentulouspatients.
Authors: Iwona M Tomaszewska; Krzysztof A Tomaszewski; Elizabeth K Kmiotek; Iwona Z Pena; Andrzej Urbanik; Michał Nowakowski; Jerzy A Walocha Journal: J Anat Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 2.610