Ali-Reza Ketabi1, Angeliki Zelka2, Hans-Christoph Lauer3, Stefan Hassfeld4. 1. Private Practice, Epplestr. 29 A, 70597, Stuttgart, Germany. privat@dr-ketabi.de. 2. , Karlsruhe, Germany. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60596, Frankfurt, Germany. 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dortmund Hospital gGmbH and Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Münsterstr. 240, 44145, Dortmund, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of the mandibular canal is a difficult process despite cutting-edge radiographic methods. The present study analyses whether mandibular canal roof visibility is comparable to panoramic radiography (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and, further, examines whether the visibility in PR and CBCT is dependent on cortical bone thickness in the mandible. METHODS: This study was conducted on a group of 343 selected patients. It incorporated anonymised data on 343 patients in which a CBCT and PR were available. The first stage examines whether the mandibular canal roof visibility is comparable to PR and CBCT. In the second stage, measurements of cortical bone thickness showed buccal and lingual in the P2, M1, M2 and M3 teeth areas, both to the left and right of the mandible in CBCT images. Statistical analysis was supported by statistical software (IBM SPSS 25; Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 58.8 years with an almost equal gender distribution. When performing a McNemar test on the P2, M1, M2 and M3 on both the left and right jaws, the difference between the two image modalities, with regard to the visibility of the canal roof, was found to be significant (McNemar test, p < 0.001). Statistically (U test, p≥0.05), it follows that the thickness of the cortical bone of the mandible exerts no influence on the visibility of the roof of canalis mandibulae in PR and CBCT images. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the visibility of the mandibular canal in PR and CBCT rays is not identical, and that the thickness of the cortical bone in the mandible does not represent a factor affecting the visibility of the roof of the mandibular canal.
BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of the mandibular canal is a difficult process despite cutting-edge radiographic methods. The present study analyses whether mandibular canal roof visibility is comparable to panoramic radiography (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and, further, examines whether the visibility in PR and CBCT is dependent on cortical bone thickness in the mandible. METHODS: This study was conducted on a group of 343 selected patients. It incorporated anonymised data on 343 patients in which a CBCT and PR were available. The first stage examines whether the mandibular canal roof visibility is comparable to PR and CBCT. In the second stage, measurements of cortical bone thickness showed buccal and lingual in the P2, M1, M2 and M3 teeth areas, both to the left and right of the mandible in CBCT images. Statistical analysis was supported by statistical software (IBM SPSS 25; Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 58.8 years with an almost equal gender distribution. When performing a McNemar test on the P2, M1, M2 and M3 on both the left and right jaws, the difference between the two image modalities, with regard to the visibility of the canal roof, was found to be significant (McNemar test, p < 0.001). Statistically (U test, p≥0.05), it follows that the thickness of the cortical bone of the mandible exerts no influence on the visibility of the roof of canalis mandibulae in PR and CBCT images. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the visibility of the mandibular canal in PR and CBCT rays is not identical, and that the thickness of the cortical bone in the mandible does not represent a factor affecting the visibility of the roof of the mandibular canal.
Authors: Carlos Estrela; Mike Reis Bueno; Cláudio Rodrigues Leles; Bruno Azevedo; José Ribamar Azevedo Journal: J Endod Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Christos Angelopoulos; Steven L Thomas; Stephen Thomas; Steven Hechler; Stephen Hechler; Nikos Parissis; Matt Hlavacek Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 1.895