Study on Lingual Concavities of Mandibular First Molar with Cone Beam Computed Tomography

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2023.03.008

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To study the prevalence and the degree of lingual concavity in the mandibular first molar edentulous region from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans to reduce the risk of perforating the lingual cortical bone during the process of dental implantation. Methods: The CBCT data of 107 adult patients were collected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Cross-sectional images of mandibular first molar area were selected. The jawbone morphology of mandibular first molar regions was classified as U-configuration (undercut), P-configuration (parallel), or C-configuration (convex). The prevalence of each group was determined. The lingual concavity characters, including the depth and the angulation, were determined by the measurements of selected anatomic landmarks. Results: Among 107 patients, the lingual undercuts (U-configuration) had a prevalence of 29.0% in the mandibular first molar region. The mean concavity angle was (57.77±8.68)° and the mean linear concavity depth (LCD) was (2.77±0.80) mm. The mean vertical distances of point P from the alveolar crest (Vc) and from the inferior mandibular border were (11.61±1.73) mm and (15.33±2.65) mm, respectively. Conclusion: The existence of lingual concavity in mandibular molar area increases the potential risk of implant surgery. CBCT image can accurately describe the anatomical characteristics of mandibular molar area and provide important reference information for making implant plan.

Key words: mandibular first molar, lingual concavity, alveolar ridge morphology, cone-beam computed tomography, dental implant

ZHANG Liangliang, ZHANG Yuxin, GAN Kang, ZHU Juanfang. Study on Lingual Concavities of Mandibular First Molar with Cone Beam Computed Tomography[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2023, 39(3): 221-226.

References

[1] Parihar AS, Rajput BS, Kaur P. Assessment of lingual concavities in submandibular fossa region in patients requiring dental implants-A cone beam computed tomography study [J]. J Contemp Dent Pract, 2018, 19(11):1329-1333.
[2] Watanabe H, Abdul MM, Kurabayashi T, et al. Mandible size and morphology determined with CT on a premise of dental implant operation [J]. Surg Radiol Anat, 2010, 32(4):343-349.
[3] Annibali S, Ripari M, Mona Ca GL, et al. Local accidents in dental implant surgery: prevention and treatment [J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2009, 29(3):325-331.
[4] Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Tarnow D. Practical application of anatomy for the dental implant surgeon [J]. J Periodontol, 2008, 79(10):1833-1846.
[5] Maroldi R, Farina D, Ravanelli M, et al. Emergency imaging assessment of deep neck space infections [J]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR, 2012, 33(5):432-442.
[6] Parnia F, Fard EM, Mahboub F, et al. Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2010, 109(1):e32-e36.
[7] Greenberg AM. Digital technologies for dental implant treatment planning and guided surgery[J]. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 2015, 27(2):319-340.
[8] Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2005, 20(3):416-424.
[9] Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, et al. Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2009, 20(5):503-506.
[10] Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH, et al. Cross-sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2010, 22(2):201-206.
[11] Chen X, Clark JJ. Tooth loss patterns in older adults with special needs: a Minnesota cohort[J].Int J Oral Sci, 2011, 3(1):27-33.
[12] Tomljenovic B, Herrmann S, Filippi A, et al. Life-threatening hemorrhage associated with dental implant surgery: a review of the literature [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2016, 27(9):1079-1084.
[13] Huang RY, Cochran DL, Cheng WC, et al. Risk of lingual plate perforation for virtual immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: A computer simulation study [J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2015, 146(10):735-742.
[14] Froum S, Casanova L, Byrne S, et al. Risk assessment before extraction for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a computerized tomographic scan study[J]. J Periodontol, 2011, 82(3):395-402.
[15] Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, et al. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2008, 37(1):10-17.
[16] Magat G. Radiomorphometric analysis of edentulous posterior mandibular ridges in the first molar region: a cone-beam computed tomography study [J]. J Periodontal Implant Sci, 2019, 50(1):28-37.
[17] Quirynen M, Mraiwa N, Steenberghe DV, et al. Morphology and dimensions of the mandibular jaw bone in the interforaminal region in patients requiring implants in the distal areas [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2003, 14(3):280-285.
[18] Parnia F, Fard EM, Mahboub F, et al. Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2010, 109(1):e32-e36.
[19] Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Eitner S, et al. Lingual concavities in the mandible: A morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT [J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2015, 43(2):254-259.
[20] Herranz-Aparicio J, Marques J, Almendros-Marqués N, et al. Retrospective study of the bone morphology in the posterior mandibular region. Evaluation of the prevalence and the degree of lingual concavity and their possible complications [J]. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2016, 21(6):731-736.
[21] Kamburoğlu K, Acar B, Yüksel S, et al. CBCT quantitative evaluation of mandibular lingual concavities in dental implant patients [J]. Surg Radiol Anat, 2015, 37(10):1209-1215.
[22] Braut V, Bornstein MM, Kuchler U, et al. Bone dimensions in the posterior mandible: a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Part 2-analysis of edentulous sites [J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2014, 34(5): 639-647.
[23] Bayrak S, Demirturk-Kocasarac H, Yaprak E, et al. Correlation between the visibility of submandibular fossa and mandibular canal cortication on panoramic radiographs and submandibular fossa depth on CBCT [J]. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2018, 23(1): e105-e111.