Age and gender variations in the cone-beam computed tomographic location of mandibular canal: Implications for mandibular sagittal split osteotomy

Abstract

Background Mandibular sagittal split osteotomy (MSSO) may incur unfavorable split and sensorineural injuries. Knowledge of the anatomic location of the mandibular canal (MC) and bone thickness in the region of interest for MSSO, and the possible variations by age and gender can assist in avoiding such complications. Purpose: To study the location of the MC and bone thickness in the region of MSSO by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) radiographs and to evaluate the possible variations by age and gender in a Jordanian population. Material and Methods This retrospective radio-anatomical study examined all CBCT radiographs for patients treated over three years at the University of Jordan Hospital, Amman, Jordan. Distances from the MC to the cortical external surfaces and MC diameter (MCD) were measured by a reliable observer at three predetermined regions for MSSO: region (A) [mandibular foramen area], region (B) [mandibular angle area] and region (C) [directly mesial to the second molar]. Gender and age differences in all measurements were then compared using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Results The final study radiographs comprised a total of 202 CBCT belonged to a cohort of 202 subjects; 91 males (45.1%) and 111 (54.9%) females, with mean age (± SD) of 42.94 ± 18.54 years (range 18–90 years). Whereas only the bone thickness superior, buccal and inferior to MC in regions (B) and (C), and MCD in the three regions exhibited significant ( p < 0.05) gender differences, all measured distances exhibited statistically significant ( p < 0.05) differences between young and adult patients. Conclusions The location of MC and bone thickness in the region of MSSO were significantly variable according to age, but exhibited sexual diamorphism only in regions (B) and (C). This fundamental knowledge should be considered during MSSO planning. Key words: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, mandibular canal, mandibular sagittal split osteotomy.

Anatomical Variations of the Mandibular Canal and Mental Foramen in Full Edentulous Iranian Subpopulation: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Study

“…The mean diameter values of the MC in regions A, B, and C were 3 ± 0.8, 4 ± 0.8, and 3.1 ± 0.8, respectively, and significantly higher in males than in females (P < 0.001). In contrast to the present study, adults exhibited a significantly lower MC diameter than younger patients (8).…”

“…MC-L distances were not considerably different between male and female subjects. MC-B in areas B and C showed notably higher measurements in males than in females in adults (8). The determination of the position and course of the MC relative to the compact lateral bone plates is highly important prior to implant placement and in the selection of implant type (20).…”

Mandibular canal vs. inferior alveolar canal: Evidence‐based terminology analysis

“…The articles that were included in the IAC/IANC group were excluded from this group. The most recent, consecutive 50 articles containing “mandibular canal” but neither “inferior alveolar canal” nor “inferior alveolar nerve canal” were included (defined as the MC group) (Abd Fattah, Hariri, Nambiar, Abu Bakar, & Abdul Rahman, 2019; Al‐Shayyab, Qabba'ah, Alsoleihat, & Baqain, 2019; Alves, Dias, Mansa, & Machado, 2020; Arias et al, 2019; Bosykh, Turkina, Franco, Franco, & Makeeva, 2019; Bozkurt & Görürgöz, 2019; Burian et al, 2019; Cârstocea, Săndulescu, Hostiuc, & Rusu, 2020; M. H. Chen et al, 2019; Costa et al, 2019; Esposito et al, 2019; Felice et al, 2019; Felice, Barausse, Pistilli, Ippolito, & Esposito, 2019; Fistarol, De Stavola, Fincato, & Bressan, 2019; Freire, Nascimento, Vasconcelos, Freitas, & Haiter‐Neto, 2019; Friedrich, Matschke, & Wilczak, 2019; Iwanaga et al, 2020, 2020; Iwanaga, Wong, Kikuta, & Tubbs, 2019; Kalabalik & Aytuğar, 2019; Koç, Eroğlu, & Bilgili, 2019; Komal, Bedi, Wadhwani, Aurora, & Chauhan, 2020; K. C. Lee, Yoon, Philipone, & Peters, 2019; Liye et al, 2019; Matsuda, Yoshimura, & Sano, 2019; Matzen, Petersen, Schropp, & Wenzel, 2019; Matzen, Villefrance, Nørholt, Bak, & Wenzel, 2020; Munhoz, Arita, Nishimura, & Watanabe, 2019; Na et al, 2019; Ngeow & Chai, 2020a, 2020b; Nicol, Loncle, Pasquet, & Vacher, 2019; Okumuş & Dumlu, 2019; Oliveira et al, 2019; Ozdede, 2020; Pedersen, Matzen, Hermann, & Nørholt, 2019; Predoiu, Rusu, & Chiriţă, 2019; Puciło, Lipski, Sroczyk‐Jaszczyńska, Puciło, & Nowicka, 2020; Raju et al, 2019; Sahl, Alqahtani, Alqahtani, & Gallez, 2018; Satir, 2019; Sholapurkar & Davies, 2019; Sinha et al, 2019; Sun et al, 2019; Tereshchuk & Sukharev, 2019; Uğur Ay...…”

Inferior alveolar canal segmentation based on cone‐beam computed tomography

“…2,3 The anatomical position and direction of the IAC should be taken into account for reducing the incidence of neurosensory disturbance during mandibular invasive surgical procedures such as mandibular osteotomies, fracture repair, and orthognathic surgeries. [4][5][6] Therefore, analyzing the shape and position of the IAC has important clinical significance. Cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT) has become one of the important imaging methods for oral and maxillofacial disease diagnosis because of the advantages of high resolution, low radiation dose, and reliable twodimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) anatomical structure information.…”