| Literature DB >> 32211048 |
N Nikkerdar1, A Golshah2, M Norouzi1, S Falah-Kooshki1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Retromolar canal (RC) is an anatomic structure, and due to increasing demand for surgical procedure in the retromolar area of the mandible, the identification of the retromolar canal has become an issue of clinical concern. It can innervate the third molar and some of the muscles around the posterior segment of the mandible, complicating surgical procedures in the retromolar area and root canal treatment of third molars. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and anatomical properties of RC in a western Iranian population using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods. Two hundred bilateral CBCT images were collected and screened in the three spatial planes for the presence of an RC. Anatomical properties and location of the RCs were assessed according to their course and distance from the surrounding structures. The relationship between the presence of RC and age, sex, side, and presence of second and third molars was also evaluated. Independent samples t-test, ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc test, paired t-test, ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc test, paired.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32211048 PMCID: PMC7085402 DOI: 10.1155/2020/9178973
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Figure 1The four types of retromolar canals are as follows: Type I. The retromolar canal originates from the mandibular canal and courses toward the retromolar fossa through (a) a straight (Ia) or (b) a curved (Ib) trajectory. (c) Type II. The retromolar canal courses between the retromolar fossa toward the root portion of the third molar, with no connection with the mandibular canal. (d) Type III. The retromolar canal originates from the mandibular foramen and courses forward to the retromolar fossa. (e) Type IV. The retromolar canal originates from a foramen other than mandibular foramen and courses anteriorly toward the retromolar fossa.
Figure 2(1) The diameter of the RC at 3 mm below the center of its foramen. (2) The vertical distance between the retromolar foramen and the superior border of the MC. (3, 4) The distance between the mesial point of the retromolar foramen and the closest point of the third and second molars at the cementoenamel junction, respectively.
Figure 3Some of the canals found in this study. (a), (b) Type Ia canals in two patients. Note the complicated relationship of the canal and third molar root in A. (c), (d) Two type Ib canals in two patients. (e), (f) Type II canals in two patients.
Relative incidence of retromolar canal types.
| Frequency | Percent (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Type Ia | 10 | 18.2 |
| Type Ib | 16 | 29.1 | |
| Type II | 29 | 52.7 | |
| Type III | 0 | 0 | |
| Type IV | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 55 | 100 | |
Mean diameter of different retromolar canal types.
| Canal type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type Ia | Type Ib | Type II | Total | |
| Frequency | 10 | 16 | 29 | 55 |
| Mean | 0.70 | 0.94 | 0.53 | 0.68 |
| Std dev. | 0.17 | 0.38 | 0.19 | 0.31 |
| Min | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Max | 0.90 | 1.80 | 0.90 | 1.80 |
Mean distance of retromolar canal to the mandibular canal and third and second molars.
| Mean | SD | Min | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dist. to 3rd molar | 7.3 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 11.4 |
| Dist.to 2nd molar | 15.3 | 3.0 | 7.7 | 21.4 |
| Dist. to mand. canal | 13.7 | 2.8 | 8.9 | 21.9 |
Distance of different types of retromolar canal to third and second molars and mandibular canal.
| Canal type | Dist. to 3rd molar | Dist. to 2nd molar | Dist. to mand. canal | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type Ia | Frequency | Valid missing | 4 | 4 | 10 |
| 6 | 6 | 0 | |||
| Mean | 5.425 | 12.225 | 11.780 | ||
| Std. dev. | 2.7183 | 3.7393 | 1.5490 | ||
| Min | 2.6 | 7.7 | 8.9 | ||
| Max | 9.1 | 16.7 | 13.6 | ||
|
| |||||
| Type Ib | Frequency | Valid missing | 2 | 6 | 15 |
| 14 | 10 | 1 | |||
| Mean | 10.500 | 14.450 | 14.467 | ||
| Std. dev. | 1.2728 | 2.9126 | 3.2412 | ||
| Min | 9.6 | 11.6 | 9.8 | ||
| Max | 11.4 | 19.2 | 21.9 | ||
|
| |||||
| Type II | Frequency | Valid missing | 17 | 18 | 27 |
| 12 | 11 | 2 | |||
| Mean | 7.376 | 16.300 | 13.956 | ||
| Std. dev. | 1.8919 | 2.4217 | 2.6933 | ||
| Min | 4.0 | 12.5 | 9.5 | ||
| Max | 10.8 | 21.4 | 20.4 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| 0.028 | 0.029 | 0.048 | ||
Prevalence of retromolar canal as reported in previous studies.
| Author(s) | Year | Population | Number of subjects | Study method | % Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jamalpour et al. [ | 2016 | Iran | 179 | CBCT | 12.8 |
| Motamedi et al. [ | 2016 | Iran | 136 | Anatomic | 40.4 |
| Park et al. [ | 2016 | S. Korea | 140 | Anatomic | 36.6 |
| Capote et al. [ | 2015 | Brazil | 500 | Panoramic | 8.8 |
| Sisman et al. [ | 2015 | Turkey | 947 hemi mandibles | CBCT | 26.7 |
| Panoramic | 0.03 | ||||
| Alves and Deana [ | 2015 | Chile | 86 | Anatomic | 18.6 |
| Potu et al. [ | 2014 | India | 94 | Anatomic | 11.7 |
| Muinelo-Lorenzo et al. [ | 2014 | Spain | 225 | CBCT | 36.8 |
| Panoramic | 16.8 | ||||
| Han and Hwang [ | 2014 | S. Korea | 446 | CBCT | 8.5 |
| Rashsurenet al. [ | 2014 | S. Korea | 755 hemi mandibles | CBCT | 11.5 |
| Patil et al. [ | 2013 | Japan | 171 (88 unilateral) | CBCT | 75.4 |
| Lizio et al. [ | 2013 | Italy | 233 unilateral images | CBCT | 14.6 |
| Rossi et al. [ | 2012 | Brazil | 222 | Anatomic | 26.5 |
| von Arx et al. [ | 2011 | Switzerland | 121 (100 unilateral) | CBCT | 25.6 |
| Panoramic | 0.05 | ||||
| Kawai et al. [ | 2011 | Japan | 90 hemi mandibles of 46 cadavers | CBCT | 52% of mandibles, 37% of sides |
| Bilecenoglu and Tuncer [ | 2006 | Turkey | 40 | Anatomic | 25 |
| Narayana et al. [ | 2002 | India | 242 | Anatomic | 21.9 |