Visibility of the mandibular canal on CBCT crosssectional images

Oliveira‐Santos, Christiano; Capelozza, Ana Lúcia Álvares; Dezzoti, Mariela Siqueira Gião; Fischer, Cássia Maria; Poleti, Marcelo Lupion; Rubira-Bullen, Izabel Regina Fischer

doi:10.1590/s1678-77572011000300011

Cited by 78 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The fidelity of CBCT images is shown in various studies, for example, identification of the mandibular canal pre-surgical implant planning and diagnosis of periodontal defects. 20,24,25 In all these investigations, CBCT imaging was superior to other imaging modalities, for example, intra-oral radiography. The disadvantage of 2D imaging, also shown in the present study, is the missing picture of vestibular and lingual structures whereby no diagnostic findings could be made by observers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology

Ritter

Elger²,

Rothamel³

et al. 2014

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

111

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The present study assesses the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) cone beam CT (CBCT) and intra-oral radiography (CR) in visualizing peri-implant bone compared with histology. Methods: 26 titanium dental implants were placed in dog jaws with chronic type vestibular defects. After a healing period of 2 and 8 weeks (n 5 12 dogs) the animals were sacrificed. CBCT scans and CR of the specimen were recorded. Dissected blocks were prepared, and histomorphometric analysis was performed. Both modalities were measured twice by two observers and compared with histomorphometry regarding bone levels and thickness around implants as well as length and diameter of implants. Results: Measurements of CBCT correlated well with histomorphometry of the vestibular bone level, oral bone thickness and implant length (all p-values ,0.05). Compared with histomorphometry, the mean differences between CBCT and histomorphometry were between 0.06 and 2.61 mm. Mesial bone level (MBL) and distal bone level (DBL) were underestimated by both CR and CBCT. CR and histology measurements were only significantly correlated for implant length measurements. All intraclass correlations were highly significant. Conclusions: 3D CBCT provides usable information about bone in all dimensions around implants with varying accuracy. CR and CBCT perform similar in assessing MBL and DBL, but, within its limits, the CBCT can assess oral and buccal bone. Metallic artefacts limit the visualization quality of bone around implants and further research could elucidate the value of post-processing algorithms. When information about osseous perforation of implants is needed, CBCT may still provide clinically valuable information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology

Ritter

Elger²,

Rothamel³

et al. 2014

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

111

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various 3-, 4-and 5-point MC visibility rating scales have been proposed by investigators. 7,18,19 Oliveira-Santos et al 12 used two scores for the evaluation of separate MC regions, whereas the overall MC visibility score was the sum of the six evaluated regions. MC depiction in another study was classified into three types for each implant site: visible in the superior and inferior walls; visible in the inferior walls and invisible in the superior walls; or invisible in the superior and inferior walls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 MC visibility was scored in a multifunction window (the "measurements" tool was selected without additional settings) for each JDS in the four parts: medial superior, medial inferior, distal superior and distal inferior (Figure 2). Since many anatomical variations can alter the common pattern of MC detection through the course, the visibility scores of the MC part for each JDS were characterized (Figure 3) as 5 (good), 4 (moderate), 3 (poor), 2 (MC border is not visible, but visibility of the dark ribbon is good) or 1 (MC border is not visible, but visibility of the dark ribbon is moderate).…”

Section: Mandibular Canal Visibility Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MC visibility on panoramic radiographs changes from the mandibular foramen to the mental foramen. 12 The identification of fine anatomical structures on radiographs in the implant site is a delicate task for dental professionals. Juodzbalys and Raustia 13 proposed to use the term "jaw dental segment" (JDS) for more accurate jaw segment identification and related investigations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Descriptive study of mandibular canal visibility: morphometric and densitometric analysis for digital panoramic radiographs

Kubilius¹,

Kubilius²,

Varinauskas³

et al. 2016

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess the visibility of the mandibular canal (MC) morphology in different jaw dental segments (JDSs) in relation to morphometric and densitometric parameters on digital panoramic radiographs (DPRs). Methods: 32 DPRs (155 JDSs) were selected randomly after retrieval. MC visibility in conjunction with superior and inferior border visibility was scored on a 5-point scale in four places on the JDS-that is, for the medial, distal, superior and inferior MC parts. Morphometric and densitometric analyses were made horizontally and vertically in the JDS region. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U test and additional tests were performed. Results: There was no significant difference in MC visibility for the superior, inferior, medial and distal parts of the JDSs. Statistically significant (p , 0.05) differences were identified between particular visibility scores of the superior and inferior MC borders. In 22.0-24.7% of JDSs, the superior MC border was not visible, more than twice as often as the inferior MC border was not visible (9.1-10.2%). The visibility of superior and inferior MC borders in JDSs was not related to the morphometric or densitometric assessment parameters, or to age, gender, JDS location, condition or the visibility of neighbouring MC parts or contralateral JDSs. Conclusions: DPRs failed to provide MC visibility based on a single factor. Particular differences were identified between the levels of visibility of the superior and inferior MC borders. More advanced radiological investigation methods could be required for the evaluation of about 25% of JDSs when superior MC border identification is obligatory.

show abstract

“…[6][7][8][9] Introduction of new radiographic techniques is enabled to see anatomical structures in all aspects without superimposition. 25 Before the accessibility of CBCT surgeons just could determine the vertical position of the mandibular canal in regard to mandibular border. 15 The picture quality and contrast between adjacent structures are important factors in the detection of anatomical structures on a radiograph.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Relationship between Mandibular Third Molar and Mandibular Canal by Different Algorithms of Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Mehdizadeh

Ahmadi

Jamshidi

2014

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Exact location of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) bundle is very important. The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between the mandibular third molar and the mandibular canal by cone-beam computed tomography. Study design:This was a cross-sectional study with convenience sampling. 94 mandibular CBCTs performed with CSANEX 3D machine (Soredex, Finland) and 3D system chosen. Vertical and horizontal relationship between the mandibular canal and the third molar depicted by 3D, panoramic reformat view of CBCT and cross-sectional view. Cross-sectional view was our gold standard and other view evaluated by it.Results: There were significant differences between the vertical and horizontal relation of nerve and tooth in all views (p < 0.001). Conclusion:The results showed differences in the position of the inferior alveolar nerve with different views of CBCT, so CBCT images are not quite reliable and have possibility of error.

show abstract

Visibility of the mandibular canal on CBCT crosssectional images

Cited by 78 publications

References 13 publications

Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology

Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology

Descriptive study of mandibular canal visibility: morphometric and densitometric analysis for digital panoramic radiographs

Evaluation of the Relationship between Mandibular Third Molar and Mandibular Canal by Different Algorithms of Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About