Mahogany S Miles1, Edwin T Parks2, George J Eckert3, Steven B Blanchard1. 1. 1 Department of Periodontics and Allied Dental Programs, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 2. 2 Department of Oral Maxillofacial Radiology, Medicine and Pathology, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. 3 Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the visibility of the mandibular canal (MC) in CBCT images and if the visibility of the MC is affected by gender, location and/or age. METHODS: CBCT images were evaluated for the visibility of the MC by a board-certified oral and maxillofacial radiologist, a board-certified periodontist and a periodontics resident. Representative slices were examined for the first premolar (PM(1)), second premolar (PM(2)), first molar (M(1)) and second molar (M(2)) sites by all examiners. The visibility of the MC was registered as either present or absent. RESULTS: 360 total CBCT cross-sectional images were examined, with the MC identified in 204 sites (56%). Age had a significant effect on MC visibility, but it differed by location: for PM(1), age 47-56 had lower visibility than age 65+ (p = 0.0377). Gender also had a significant effect on canal visibility, where females had lower visibility than males overall (p = 0.0178) and had the most pronounced difference for PM(1) (p = 0.0054). Location had a significant effect on visibility, but it differed by age and by gender: for age 65+, M(2) had lower visibility than PM(1) (p = 0.0411) and PM(2) (p = 0.0180), while for females, PM(1) had lower visibility than M(1) (p = 0.0123) and M(2) (p = 0.0419). CONCLUSIONS: The MC was visualized only in just over half of the CBCT images. Age, gender and location had significant effects on the visibility.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the visibility of the mandibular canal (MC) in CBCT images and if the visibility of the MC is affected by gender, location and/or age. METHODS: CBCT images were evaluated for the visibility of the MC by a board-certified oral and maxillofacial radiologist, a board-certified periodontist and a periodontics resident. Representative slices were examined for the first premolar (PM(1)), second premolar (PM(2)), first molar (M(1)) and second molar (M(2)) sites by all examiners. The visibility of the MC was registered as either present or absent. RESULTS: 360 total CBCT cross-sectional images were examined, with the MC identified in 204 sites (56%). Age had a significant effect on MC visibility, but it differed by location: for PM(1), age 47-56 had lower visibility than age 65+ (p = 0.0377). Gender also had a significant effect on canal visibility, where females had lower visibility than males overall (p = 0.0178) and had the most pronounced difference for PM(1) (p = 0.0054). Location had a significant effect on visibility, but it differed by age and by gender: for age 65+, M(2) had lower visibility than PM(1) (p = 0.0411) and PM(2) (p = 0.0180), while for females, PM(1) had lower visibility than M(1) (p = 0.0123) and M(2) (p = 0.0419). CONCLUSIONS: The MC was visualized only in just over half of the CBCT images. Age, gender and location had significant effects on the visibility.
Authors: Erika Benavides; Hector F Rios; Scott D Ganz; Chang-Hyeon An; Randolph Resnik; Gayle Tieszen Reardon; Steven J Feldman; James K Mah; David Hatcher; Myung-Jin Kim; Dong-Seok Sohn; Ady Palti; Morton L Perel; Kenneth W M Judy; Carl E Misch; Hom-Lay Wang Journal: Implant Dent Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.454
Authors: Leo Lou; Manuel O Lagravere; Sharon Compton; Paul W Major; Carlos Flores-Mir Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2006-10-27