Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cone-beam CT evaluation of morphology, location, and course of mandibular incisive canal: considerations for implant treatment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of the present study was to assess the presence and course of the incisive canal (IC) in the mental interforaminal region according to dental status, age, and sex using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods

The right and left sides were retrospectively studied in 356 patients (n = 712). Axial, sagittal, cross-sectional, and panoramic images were evaluated, and three-dimensional images were reconstructed and evaluated as necessary. The morphology, course, and length of mandibular ICs and the inner and outer diameters of the canals were measured. The reliability and reproducibility of measurements were examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the coefficient of variation.

Results

The IC was found on 91 % of images, and its mean length anterior to the mental foramen was approximately 12.4 mm. The mean distance of the IC from the lower mandibular border was 10.5 mm, and its course was closer to the buccal border at the starting point; it deviated lingually through the anterior mandible. Statistically significant differences in the course and localization of the IC were found in edentulous and older patients (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

A high proportion of mandibular canals can be detected by CBCT imaging. Clinicians should be careful during implant or bone surgery procedures to avoid possible complications, with special emphasis on patient age and dental status, using this imaging modality that minimizes radiation exposure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, Van Steenberghe D, Sanderink G, Quirynen M. Appearance of the mandibular incisive canal on panoramic radiographs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5:219–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bavitz JB, Harn SD, Hansen CA, Lang M. An anatomical study of mental neurovascular bundle–implant relationships. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8:563–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mardinger O, Chaushu G, Arensburg B, Taicher S, Kaffe I. Anatomic and radiologic course of the mandibular incisive canal. Surg Radiol Anat. 2000;22:157–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McDonnell D, Reza Nouri M, Todd ME. The mandibular lingual foramen: a consistent arterial foramen in the middle of the mandible. J Anat. 1994;184:363–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Makris N, Stamatakis H, Syriopoulos K, Tsiklakis K, van der Stelt PF. Evaluation of the visibility and the course of the mandibular incisive canal and the lingual foramen using cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:766–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mraiwa N, Jacobs R, Moerman P, Lambrichts I, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. Presence and course of the incisive canal in the human mandibular interforaminal region: two-dimensional imaging versus anatomical observations. Surg Radiol Anat. 2003;25:416–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Romanos GE, Greenstein G. The incisive canal. Considerations during implant placement: case report and literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:740–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenquist B. Is there an anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve? Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1996;16:40–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ellies LG. Altered sensation following mandibular implant surgery: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:664–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Robinson M, Slavkin HC. Dental amputation neuromas. J Am Dent Assoc. 1965;70:662–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shibli JA, Martins MC, Loffredo LC, Scaf G. Detection of the mandibular canal and the mental foramen in panoramic radiographs: intra-examiner agreement. J Oral Implantol. 2012;38:27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kalender A, Orhan K, Aksoy U. Evaluation of the mental foramen and accessory mental foramen in Turkish patients using cone-beam computed tomography images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program. Clin Anat. 2011. doi:10.1002/ca.21277.

  13. Rouas P, Nancy J, Bar D. Identification of double mandibular canals: literature review and three case reports with CT scans and cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:34–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mozzo P, Procacc C, Tacconi A, Martin PT, Bergamo IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:1558–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. Angle Orthod. 2009;79:150–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pires CA, Bissada NF, Becker JJ, Kanawati A, Landers MA. Mandibular incisive canal: cone beam computed tomography. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:67–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part I: on subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:265–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:461–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106:106–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, vanSteenberghe D, Gijbels F, Quirynen M. Appearance, location, course, and morphology of the mandibular incisive canal: an assessment on spiral CT scan. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31:322–7.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tepper G, Hofschneider UB, Gahleitner A, Ulm C. Computed tomographic diagnosis and localization of bone canals in the mandibular interforaminal region for prevention of bleeding complications during implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:68–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Longoni S, Sartori M, Braun M, Bravetti P, Lapi A, Baldoni M, et al. Lingual vascular canals of the mandible: the risk of bleeding complications during implant procedures. Implant Dent. 2007;16:131–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Al-Ani O, Nambiar P, Ha KO, Ngeow WC. Safe zone for bone harvesting from the interforaminal region of the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02393.x.

  24. Parnia F, Moslehifard E, Hafezeqoran A, Mahboub F, Mojaver-Kahnamoui H. Characteristics of anatomical landmarks in the mandibular interforaminal region: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17:e420–5.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Liang X, Jacobs R, Corpas LS, Semal P, Lambrichts I. Chronologic and geographic variability of neurovascular structures in the human mandible. Forensic Sci Int. 2009;190:24–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of three dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:129–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Apostolakis D, Brown JE. The anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve: prevalence, measurement of its length and a recommendation for interforaminal implant installation based on cone beam CT imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:1022–30.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chang PC, Liang K, Lim J, Chung MC, Chien LY. A comparison of the thresholding strategies of micro-CT for periodontal bone loss: a pilot study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42:66925194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Olivier E. The inferior dental canal and its nerve in the adult. Br Dent J. 1928;49:356–8.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Langland OE, Sippy FH, Langlais RP. Textbook of dental radiology. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas; 1984.

  31. Thunthy KH, Yeadon WR, Nasr HF. An illustrative study of the role of tomograms for the placement of dental implants. J Oral Implantol. 2003;29:91–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Denissen HW, Veldhuis HA, van Faassen F. Implant placement in the atrophic mandible: an anatomic study. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;52:260–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vijay V, Harbhankti MS. The dentate adult human mandible: an anatomic basis for surgical decision making. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;97:536–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Juodzbalys G, Wang HL, Sabalys G. Anatomy of mandibular vital structures. Part II: mandibular incisive canal, mental foramen, associated neurovascular bundles in relation with dental implantology. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02314.

  35. Uchida Y, Noguchi N, Goto M, Yamashita Y, Hanihara T, Takamori H, et al. Measurement of anterior loop length for the mandibular canal and diameter of the mandibular incisive canal to avoid nerve damage when installing endosseous implants in the interforaminal region: a second attempt introducing cone beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:744–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Obradovic O, Todorovic L, Pesic V, Pejkovic B, Vitanovic V. Morphometric analysis of mandibular canal: clinical aspects. Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol. 1993;36:109–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chrcanovic BR, Abreu MH, Custódio AL. Morphological variation in dentate and edentulous human mandibles. Surg Radiol Anat. 2011;33:203–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pietrokovski J, Starinsky R, Arensburg B, Kaffe I. Morphologic characteristics of bony edentulous jaws. J Prosthodont. 2007;16:141–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Prado FB, Groppo FC, Volpato MC, Caria PH. Morphological changes in the position of the mandibular foramen in dentate and edentate Brazilian subjects. Clin Anat. 2010;23:394–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Xie Q, Wolf J, Tilvis R, Ainamo A. Resorption of mandibular canal wall in the edentulous aged population. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77:596–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jeffcoat MK, Chesnut CH 3rd. Systemic osteoporosis and oral bone loss: evidence shows increased risk factors. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993;124:49–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. von Wowern N, Stoltze K. Pattern of age related bone loss in mandibles. Scand J Dent Res. 1980;88:134–46.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Apinhasmit W, Methathrathip D, Chompoopong S, Sangvichien S. Mental foramen in Thais: an anatomical variation related to gender and side. Surg Radiol Anat. 2006;28:529–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Merrot O, Vacher C, Merrot S, Godlewski G, Frigard B, Goudot P. Changes in the edentate mandible in the elderly. Surg Radiol Anat. 2005;27:265–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Enlow DH, Bianco HJ, Eklund S. The remodeling of the edentulous mandible. J Prosthet Dent. 1976;36:685–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wyatt CC. The effect of prosthodontic treatment on alveolar bone loss: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80:362–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ankara, Ankara, Turkey

    Kaan Orhan

  2. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Mersin 10, Lefkosa, Turkey

    Kaan Orhan & Secil Aksoy

  3. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey

    Murat Icen

  4. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Mersin 10, Lefkosa, Turkey

    Oguz Ozan

  5. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Mersin 10, Lefkosa, Turkey

    Atilla Berberoglu

Authors
  1. Kaan Orhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Murat Icen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Secil Aksoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oguz Ozan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Atilla Berberoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Secil Aksoy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Orhan, K., Icen, M., Aksoy, S. et al. Cone-beam CT evaluation of morphology, location, and course of mandibular incisive canal: considerations for implant treatment. Oral Radiol 30, 64–75 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-013-0138-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-013-0138-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation