| Literature DB >> 32269956 |
Reema Talat Ayesha1, Balaji Pachipulusu1, Poornima Govindaraju1.
Abstract
Objectives: To avoid anatomical and functional damage to mandibular interforaminal region during surgeries, it is necessary to detect the existence of mandibular incisive canal (MIC) and its proximity to adjacent structures. This study was aimed to evaluate the prevalence of MIC and its proximity to adjacent structures among Indian population. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Canal; Cone beam computed tomography; Indian ethnicity; Interforaminal region; Mandibular incisive canal
Year: 2019 PMID: 32269956 PMCID: PMC7137369 DOI: 10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_76_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ci Ji Yi Xue Za Zhi
Figure 1Mandibular incisive canal (cone beam computed tomography – reformatted panoramic view)
Figure 2Measurement of distances from mandibular incisive canal to the adjacent surfaces yellow line: Lingual cortical plate; red line: Labial cortical plate; purple line: Lower border of mandible
Figure 3Prevalence of mandibular incisive canal in overall study sample
Prevalence of mandibular incisive canal on right and left side
| MIC | Category | |
|---|---|---|
| Right | Present | 29 (36.3) |
| Absent | 51 (63.7) | |
| Left | Present | 32 (40.0) |
| Absent | 48 (60.0) |
MIC: Mandibular incisive canal
Prevalence of mandibular incisive canal among different genders using Chi-square test
| MIC | Males, | Females, | χ2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present | 16 (40.0) | 19 (47.5) | 0.457 | 0.50 |
| Absent | 24 (60.0) | 21 (52.5) |
MIC: Mandibular incisive canal
Prevalence of mandibular incisive canal among different age groups using Chi-square test
| MIC | Years, | χ2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20-30 | 31-40 | 41--50 | >50 | |||
| Present | 13 (38.2) | 11 (44.0) | 5 (41.7) | 6 (66.7) | 2.363 | 0.50 |
| Absent | 21 (61.8) | 14 (56.0) | 7 (58.3) | 3 (33.3) | ||
MIC: Mandibular incisive canal
Mean dimensions of mandibular incisive canal for various surfaces
| Surfaces | Mean±SD | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labial | 4.338±1.478 | 1.93 | 8.03 |
| Lingual | 4.340±1.530 | 1.3 | 7.74 |
| LBM | 9.417±1.832 | 6.03 | 14.18 |
SD: Standard deviation, LBM: Lingual border of mandible
Gender-wise comparison of mandibular incisive canal to different surfaces
| Surfaces | Sex | Mean±SD | Mean difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labial | Males | 16 | 5.018±1.490 | 1.252 | 2.723 | 0.01* |
| Females | 19 | 3.766±1.232 | ||||
| Lingual | Males | 16 | 3.831±1.596 | −0.937 | −1.870 | 0.07 |
| Females | 19 | 4.768±1.370 | ||||
| LBM | Males | 16 | 10.114±1.619 | 1.283 | 2.174 | 0.04* |
| Females | 19 | 8.831±1.833 |
*P ≤ 0.05 Statistically significant. LBM: Lingual border of mandible, SD: Standard deviation
Figure 4Age wise comparison of mean distance (in mm) of mandibular incisive canal with respect to different surfaces
Comparison of mean distance (in mm) of Mandibular incisive canal based on its proximity to different surfaces using student paired t-test
| Pairs | Proximity | Mean±SD | Mean Diff | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| La versus Li | Labial | 35 | 4.338±1.478 | −0.001 | −0.003 | 1.00 |
| Lingual | 35 | 4.340±1.530 | ||||
| La versus LBM | Labial | 35 | 4.338±1.478 | −5.079 | −13.555 | <0.001* |
| LBM | 35 | 9.417±1.832 | ||||
| Li versus LBM | Lingual | 35 | 4.340±1.530 | −5.078 | −10.538 | <0.001* |
| LBM | 35 | 9.417±1.832 |
*Statistically significant. LBM: Lingual border of mandible, SD: Standard deviation