Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants

CBCT quantitative evaluation of mandibular lingual concavities in dental implant patients

“…These findings were attributed to patient-related factors such as age and bone pattern, concavity localization, and the presence or absence of teeth in the region. This contrasts with a study by Parnia et al [13] that found age and concavity localization had no significant effect on submandibular concavity dimensions. However, Uchida et al [20] reported that volumetric changes of the alveolar ridge after edentulism may lead to a reduction in sublingual concavity dimensions and recommended that implant treatment planning includes a detailed evaluation of the amount and morphology of bone, with the duration of edentulism also taken into consideration.…”

“…A study by Chan et al [3] that evaluated the prevalence and morphology of mandibular lingual concavities in Table 1 The distribution of samples with or without lingual concavity according to gender and dental status (dentate/edentulous) edentulous first molar regions reported the marked lingual undercut (U type) to be the most common type, accounting for 66 % of concavities identified. Moreover, in 80 % of patients, the depth of submandibular concavities exceeded 2 mm, which is in line with our results [13].…”

“…Mandibular lingual concavities have been reported to present a risk factor for lingual perforation [3,10]. Parnia et al [13] divided mandibular concavities into three morphological categories according to concavity depth and concluded that the risk of lingual perforation during implant fixture is higher with deeper concavities (Types 2 and 3). A study by Chan et al [3] that evaluated the prevalence and morphology of mandibular lingual concavities in Table 1 The distribution of samples with or without lingual concavity according to gender and dental status (dentate/edentulous) edentulous first molar regions reported the marked lingual undercut (U type) to be the most common type, accounting for 66 % of concavities identified.…”

“…Various authors have suggested that tomographic crosssectional imaging is an appropriate technique for use in the assessment of mandibular morphology, especially for identifying lingual concavities, because of the high measurement accuracy obtained from its high-resolution images, which are free from superposition, magnification, and distortion [3,13,15]. However, according to Al Ghamdi, posterior mandibular implant placement without complications can be satisfactorily achieved with ridge mapping, panoramic radiography, and infiltration anesthesia [1].…”

“…The American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology recommends cross-sectional imaging prior to implant placement, especially when limited bone is available at the implant site [19]. These images assist in determining the appropriate size, angulation, and position of implants before and after placement [13,18]. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of sublingual and submandibular concavities and to obtain metric, volumetric, and surface measurements of these concavities using CBCT images in order to establish principal morphological data according to concavity localization, dental status (dentate/edentulous), and gender.…”