Evaluation of the prevalence and location of bifid mandibular canals. A CBCT study

Rodrigo Montezano da Cunha, Mariana Boessio Vizzotto, Paula Nery Ignácio Xavier, Priscila F. da Silveira Tiecher, Nádia Assein Arús, Luize Severo Martins, Danielle Bianca de Lima Freire, Heraldo Luis Dias da Silveira

Abstract


Aim: To investigate the prevalence and location of bifid mandibular canals (CMB) using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: Three trained and calibrated dental radiologists individually evaluated 1254 CT scans using the I-Cat Vision software (Imaging Sciences International®) and classified them into four distinct types (Retromolar, Dental, Forward and Bucolingual). Frequency data, collected from an Access form (Microsoft® Office), were analyzed using the Fischer and Friedman test. The level of statistical significance was set at 5%. Results: CMBs were found in 276 cases (22%), with no gender predilection (P = 0.186). There was a statistically significant difference between the types (P = 0.001). Discussion: The recognition of a CMB is of great relevance when associated with anesthetic and surgical procedures in the posterior region of the mandible. Although many studies have shown that CMB is not commonly seen, a failure to identify it can result in damage to the lower alveolar nerve (NAI) or difficulty in obtaining anesthetic block. Conclusion: The most frequent type of CMB in both genders was retromolar (P = 0.001), representing 18.5%, and visualized with rates of 47.1% in women and 52.9% in men. The frequency of CMBs analyzed using the CBCT was significant in the population evaluated and presented in different configurations. Thus, its investigation should not be neglected in the face of surgical procedures that involve the posterior region of the mandible.

Keywords


Mandible; Anatomy; Anatomic variation; Cone-beam computed tomography

References


Villaça-Carvalho MF, Manhães LR, de Moraes ME, Lopes SL. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canals by cone beam computed tomography. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Sep;20(3):289-94.

Haas LF, Dutra K, Porporatti AL, Mezzomo LA, De Luca Canto G, Flores-Mir C, et al. Anatomical variations of mandibular canal detected by panoramic radiography and CT: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016 Feb;45(2):20150310.

Xie Q, Wolf J, Soikkonen K, Ainamo. Height of mandibular basal bone in dentate and edentulous subjects. Acta Odontol Scand. 1996 Dec;54(6):379-83.

Correr GM, Iwanko D, Leornardi DP, Ulbich LM, Araújo MR, Deliberador TM. Classification of bifid mandibular canals using cone beam computed tomography. Braz Oral Res. 2013 Nov-Dec;27(6):510-6.

Rouas P, Nancy J, Bar D. Identification of double mandibular canals: literature review and three case reports with CT scans and cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007 Jan;36(1):34–8.

Neves FS, Nascimento MC, Oliveira ML, Almeida SM, Bóscolo FN. Comparative analysis of mandibular anatomical variations between panoramic and cone beam computed tomography. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Dec;18(4):419-24.

Kuczynski A, Kucharski W, Franco A, Westphalen FH, De Lima AA, Fernandes A. Prevalence of bifid canals in panoramic radiographs: a maxillofacial surgical scope. Surg Radiol Anat. 2014 Nov;36(9):847-50.

Kim MS, Yoon SJ, Park HW, Kang JH, Yang SY, Moon YH, et al. A false presence of bifid mandibular canals in panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Oct;40(7):434-8.

Kasabah S, Modellel Y. Classification of bifid mandibular canals in the Sirian population using panoramic radiographs. East Mediterr Health J. 2014 Jan;19(3):178-83.

Naitoh M, Nakahara K, Suenaga Y, Gotoh K, Kondo S, Ariji E. Comparison between cone-beam and multislice computed tomography depicting mandibular neurovascular canal structures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010 Jan;109(1):25-31.

Orhan K, Aksoy S, Bilecenoglu B, Sakul BU, Paksoy CS. Evaluation of bifid mandibular canals with cone-beam computed tomography in a Turkish adult population: a retrospective study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2011 Aug;33(6):501-7.

Kuribayashi A, Watanabe H, Imaizumi A, Tantanapornkul W, Katakami K, Kuribayashi T. Bifid mandibular canals: cone beam computed tomography evaluation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010 May;39(4):235-9.

Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent. 2012 Apr;21(2):78-86.

Kim IH, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. Review of cone beam computed tomography guidelines in North America. Quintessence Int. 2019 Jan;25;50(2):136-45.

Hayashi T, Arai Y, Chikui T, Hayashi-Sakai S, Honda K, Indo H, et al. A Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines; Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Clinical guidelines for dental cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol. 2018 May;34(2):89-104.

Naitoh M, Hiraiwa Y, Aimiya H, Ariji E. Observation of bifid mandibular canal using cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009 Jan-Feb;24(1):155-9.

Oliveira-Santos C, Capelozza AL, Dezzoti MS, Fischer CM, Poleti ML, Rubira-Bullen IR. Visibility of the mandibular canal on CBCT cross- sectional images. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011 May-Jun;19(3):240-3.

Leite GM, Lana JP, de Carvalho Machado V, Manzi FR, Souza PE, Horta MC. Anatomic variations and lesions of the mandibular canal detected by cone beam computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat. 2014 Oct;36(8):795-804.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22456/2177-0018.109143

e-ISSN 2177-0018 / ISSN 0566-1854. Indexers: descrição da foto descrição da foto descrição da foto