Thickness of Buccal and Lingual Alveolar Bone Plates According to the Position of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans
Objectives: This study sought to assess the thickness of buccal and lingual alveolar bone plates according to the position of impacted mandibular third molars on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans.
Materials and Methods: Eighty-four CBCT scans of impacted mandibular third molars were evaluated in this retrospective study. All images had been obtained by ProMax 3D CBCT system with the exposure settings of 78 kVp, 12 mA, 16 s time, 0.2 mm voxel size and 10 × 9 cm field of view. The impaction angle of teeth and the thickness of buccal and lingual cortical plates were determined on images by drawing lines in the anterior, middle, posterior, superior, central and inferior regions. Thickness of bone plates was analyzed according to the position of impacted molars relative to the buccal and lingual plates using the Student t-test and relative to the second molars using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test.
Results: In the buccolingual direction, the buccal plate thickness was maximum in lingual position followed by central position, and minimum in buccal position of the teeth. The lingual plate thickness was minimum in horizontal and distoangular positions and maximum in the mesioangular position of impacted teeth.
Conclusion: Risk of lingual plate preformation is higher in surgical removal of impacted third molars with distoangular and horizontal positions. Thus, further attention must be paid by the surgeons to such cases.
2. Hupp JR, Tucker MR, Ellis III E. Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2013:75-6.
3. Al-Anqudi SM, Al-Sudairy S, Al-Hosni A, Al-Maniri A. Prevalence and pattern of third molar impaction: a retrospective study of radiographs in Oman. Sultan Qaboos University Med J. 2014 Aug;14(3):e388-92.
4. Koong B, Pharoah MJ, Bulsara M, Tennant M. Methods of determining the relationship of the mandibular canal and third molars: a survey of Australian oral and maxillofacial surgeons. Australian Dent J. 2006 Mar;51(1):64-8.
5. Maegawa H, Sano K, Kitagawa Y, Ogasawara T, Miyauchi K, Sekine J, et al Preoperative assessment of the relationship between the mandibular third molar and the mandibular canal by axial computed tomography with coronal and sagittal reconstruction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003 Nov;96(5):639-46.
6. Blaeser BF. Panoramic radiographic risk factors for IAN injury after third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003 Apr;61(4):417-21.
7. Aznar-Arasa L, Figueiredo R, Gay-Escoda C. Iatrogenic dis-placement of lower third molar roots into the sublingual space: report of 6 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Feb;70(2):e107-15.
8. White S, Pharoah M. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. Philadelphia: Mosby Co., 2004;5:166-72,272-3,677-82.
9. Ge J, Zheng JW, Yang C, Qian WT. Variations in the buccal-lingual alveolar bone thickness of impacted mandibular third molar: our classification and treatment perspectives. Sci Rep. 2016 Jan;6:16375.
10. Obiechina AE, Arotiba JT, Fasola AO. Third molar impaction: evaluation of the symptoms and pattern of impaction of mandibular third molar teeth in Nigerians. Odontostomatol Trop. 2001 Mar;24(93):22-5.
11. Ge J. Four osteotomy methods with piezosurgery to remove complicated mandibular third molars: a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Nov;72(11):2126-33.
12. Hasegawa T. Risk factors associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury after extraction of the mandibular third molar–a comparative study of preoperative images by panoramic radiography and computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jul;42(7):843-51.
13. Schneider T. Variations in the anatomical positioning of impacted mandibular wisdom teeth and their practical implications. Swiss Dent J. 2014;124(5):520-38.
14. Ghaeminia H. The use of cone beam CT for the removal of wisdom teeth changes the surgical approach compared with panoramic radiography: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Aug;40(8):834-9.
15. Momin MA, Matsumoto K, Ejima K, Asaumi R, Kawai T, Arai Y. Correlation of mandibular impacted tooth and bone morphology determined by cone beam computed topography on a premise of third molar operation. Surg Radiol Anat. 2013
16. Peterson LJ. Principles of management
of impacted teeth, in Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery. 5th Ed., St. Louis. CV Mosby Co., 2008:153-61.
17. Aalam AA, Nowzari H. Mandibular cortical bone grafts part 1: anatomy, healing process, and influencing factors. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2007 Apr;28(4):206-12.
18. Xu GZ, Yang C, Fan XD, Yu CQ, Cai XY,
Wang Y, et al. Anatomic relationship between impacted third mandibular molar and the mandibular canal as the risk factor of inferior alveolar nerve injury. Br J Oral & Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Dec;51(8):e215-9.
19. Emes Y, Oncu B, Aybar B, Al-Badri N, Işsever H, Atalay B, et al. Measurement of the lingual position of the lower third molar roots using cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan;73(1):13-7.
|Issue||Vol 16, No 4 (2019)|
|Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Molar Third Mandible Surgery|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|