Prevalence of bifid mandibular canal according to gender, type and side

Abstract

Background/purpose An awareness of mandibular canal variations may help prevent complications due to nerve damage that can occur during surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the variations of mandibular canal distribution and frequency via cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), retrospectively, in a Turkish population. Materials and methods The study population comprises 500 (250 female, 250 male) randomly selected participants between the ages of 14 and 79 years. The study was conducted in Marmara University, Faculty of Dentistry, in the Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. The distribution and frequency of mandibular canal variations were evaluated using the Naitoh classification, which includes retromolar canal, forward canal, dental canal, and buccolingual canal. The trifid canal was also included in this study. The data were analysed using IBM SPSS statistics 20.0. The data were then compared based on age group and gender. Results Bifid mandibular canals (BMCs) were found in 200 (40%) of the 500 subjects, and in 248 of the 1000 sides (24.8%). Mandibular canal variations were observed in 71.5% of patients on the right side, 52.5% on left side and 24% bilaterally. The forward canal was the most common type (48.8%), followed by the retromolar canal (26.2%), the dental canal (12.9%), the buccolingual canal (9.7%), and the trifid canal (2.4%). Conclusion BMCs were detected at a high rate in the Turkish subpopulation. Moreover, CBCT appears to be an appropriate method to assess the entity and shape of BMCs.

The clinical anatomy of accessory mandibular canal in dentistry

“…CT and CBCT have been used to overcome the limitations of panoramic radiography (Fukami et al, ). So far, four studies have used both panoramic and CBCT (López‐Videla et al, ; Moro et al, ; Muinelo‐Lorenzo et al, ; Neves et al, ), two have used a combination of CT and CBCT (Rouas, Delbos, & Nancy, ; Shen et al, ), 21 have used only CBCT, one of them determining the prevalence of BMC in children (Afsa & Rahmati, ; Borgonovo et al, ; de Castro et al, ; de Oliveira‐Santos et al, ; Kang et al, ; Kuribayashi et al, ; Li et al, ; Luangchana et al, ; Naitoh et al, ; Neves et al, ; Ogawa et al, ; Okumu & Dumlu, ; Orhan et al, ; Orhan et al, ; Rashsuren et al, ; Shah et al, ; Sonneveld et al, ; Villa et al, ; Yang et al, ; Yi et al, ; Yoon et al, ; Zhang et al, ), and two have used only CT (Fu et al, ; Lins et al, ). These CT and CBCT studies reported a higher prevalence of BMC, in the range 0.05 to 69.0% (Table ).…”

“…There were similarities to the system of Langlais et al () but with the addition of buccal or lingual bifurcation, which could not have been identified by panoramic radiography. At least 12 teams of investigators (Kang et al, ; Li et al, ; López‐Videla et al, ; Muinelo‐Lorenzo et al, ; Okumu & Dumlu, ; Orhan et al, ; Orhan et al, ; Rashsuren et al, ; Sonneveld et al, ; Yang et al, ; Yi et al, ; Zhang et al, ) have used the Naitoh et al classification system to determine the prevalence of BMC in their respective populations. One of these groups concentrated their study only on children (Orhan et al, ).…”

“…A comparison of the findings is shown in Figure . Different studies have shown different proportions of BMC types within a cross‐sectional sample of a group, six of them reporting the forward canal as the most common type (López‐Videla et al, ; Naitoh et al, ; Okumu & Dumlu, ; Orhan et al, ; Sonneveld et al, ; Yang et al, ) and another four reporting the retromolar canal as the most common (Kang et al, ; Orhan et al, ; Rashsuren et al, ; Zhang et al, ). Two other studies reported almost equal proportions of these two types of accessory canal (Li et al, ; Muinelo‐Lorenzo et al, ).…”

Incidence and Anatomical Properties of Retromolar Canal in an Iranian Population: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study

“…e largest foramina are found in the retromolar area [2], and their corresponding canals are referred to as the retromolar canals (RCs). ese canals are sometimes considered as a type of bifid MC [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], but this assumption is not always true.…”

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...…”