Precision mapping of mandibular canal dimensions: CBCT insights


Abstract

Background. The purpose of this study was to provide detailed anatomical localization of the inferior alveolar canal (IAC) in the mandible area using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), with buccal cortex thickness (BCT), IAC diameter, mental foramen position (MF), and buccal shift patterns of IAC being the particular considerations.

Methods. This retrospective split-mouth study analyzed 126 CBCT scans of 63 males and 63 females between the age group of 18 to 65 years from the faculty of Dentistry, Taibah University, Saudi Arabia. Measurements were BCT at nine points between the first premolar and third molar area, IAC diameter, the nearest point of IAC to the mandible's lower border, MF position in relation to premolar apices and mandibular border, and the position of buccal shifting of the IAC. Statistics were calculated with Student's t-test and paired t-test with the level of significance at p ≤ 0.05.

Results. BCT showed a progressive increase from anterior to posterior regions in both genders, with the thickest measurements at the second and third molar regions. The MF position showed considerable individual variation, with 10% of female subjects exhibiting a coronal position relative to premolar apices. The IAC diameter ranged from 2.43 to 3.80 mm. The closest position of the IAC to the lower border was mostly in the second molar area, with the shortest distances being 2.50-3.40 mm. The canal mainly has a buccal shift in the second molar in 60-81.8% of the subjects.

Conclusion. This study provides comprehensive anatomical mapping of the mandibular region, highlighting considerable individual variation in key anatomical parameters. The findings have significant clinical implications for various dental and maxillofacial procedures.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].