CBCT Quantitative Evaluation of Mandibular Lingual Concavities in Dental Implant Patients

Overview

Journal Surg Radiol Anat

Specialties Anatomy & Histology
General Surgery
Radiology

Date 2015 May 22

PMID 25994600

Citations 8

Authors

Kivanc Kamburoglu

Buket Acar

Selcen Yuksel

Candan Semra Paksoy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of mandibular lingual concavities and to measure them using CBCT (Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography).

Methods: In this study, CBCT scans of 200 patients requiring dental implants were assessed for lingual concavities. Reconstructed CBCT images were transferred as DICOM files to the 3D DOCTOR software program, and metric, volumetric, and surface area measurements were obtained. Two-way mixed ANOVA was used to model side (left/right, anterior), measurement type, and gender with side and type taken as within-subject variables, gender as between-subject variables, and age as a covariate. A comparison between the dentate and edentulous groups in the samples with lingual concavities was performed using an unpaired Student's t test.

Results: Submandibular concavity mean depth and volume were found to be 2.4 mm and 130.7 mm(3), whereas mean depth and volume of sublingual concavities were found to be 1.3 mm and 26.5 mm(3). Significant inverse ratios were found between age and volume and between age and surface area (p < 0.05). All measurements were higher in males than females, but the differences were not statistically significant. The differences between the presence of concavity (sublingual, right, and left submandibular) and dental status (dentate/edentulous) were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Mandibular lingual concavity dimensions were found to vary by age, location, and the presence/absence of teeth. Third party software can be used to generate 3-dimensional models that provide useful information about shape, size, and location of sublingual and submandibular concavities prior to implant placement.

Citing Articles

Proposed Classification System for Submandibular Gland Fossa Anatomy and Its Radiomorphometric Assessment Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Retrospective Study.

Mukherjee S, Bajoria A, N C S, Bhuvaneshwari S, Mishra S, Singh D Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e77301.

PMID: 39944454 PMC: 11813642. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.77301.

Factors influencing submandibular fossa visibility on panoramic images: a comparative CBCT study.

Ozeren Keskek C, Aytugar E BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1556.

PMID: 39725917 PMC: 11673811. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-05364-6.

Quantitative and qualitative 3D analysis of mandibular lingual concavities: Implications for dental implant planning in the posterior mandible.

Alqutaibi A, Alghauli M, Aboalrejal A, Mulla A, Almohammadi A, Aljayyar A Clin Exp Dent Res. 2024; 10(1):e858.

PMID: 38345362 PMC: 10860544. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.858.

Evaluation of submandibular gland and submandibular fossa: a combined cone beam computed tomography and ultrasound study.

Akol Gorgun E, Caglayan F Eur Oral Res. 2023; 57(3):128-132.

PMID: 37929223 PMC: 10622153. DOI: 10.26650/eor.20231109135.

Effects of Crest Morphology on Lingual Concavity in Mandibular Molar Region: an Observational Study.

Cimen T, Asar N, Goyushov S, Duruel O, Tozum T J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2023; 14(1):e3.

PMID: 37180407 PMC: 10170663. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2023.14103.

References

Kalpidis C, Setayesh R . Hemorrhaging associated with endosseous implant placement in the anterior mandible: a review of the literature. J Periodontol. 2004; 75(5):631-45. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2004.75.5.631. View

Scarfe W, Farman A, Sukovic P . Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006; 72(1):75-80. View

Scaravilli M, Mariniello M, Sammartino G . Mandibular lingual vascular canals (MLVC): evaluation on dental CTs of a case series. Eur J Radiol. 2009; 76(2):173-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.06.002. View

Palma-Carrio C, Balaguer-Martinez J, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago M . Irritative and sensory disturbances in oral implantology. Literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011; 16(7):e1043-6. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.17125. View

Kamburoglu K, Murat S, Kilic C, Yuksel S, Avsever H, Farman A . Accuracy of CBCT images in the assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects: effect of field of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 43(4):20130332. PMC: 4082260. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20130332. View

Shiratori L, Marotti J, Yamanouchi J, Chilvarquer I, Contin I, Tortamano-Neto P . Measurement of buccal bone volume of dental implants by means of cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 23(7):797-804. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02207.x. View

Lamas Pelayo J, Penarrocha Diago M, Marti Bowen E, Diago M . Intraoperative complications during oral implantology. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008; 13(4):E239-43. View

Horiuchi M, Ichikawa T, Kanitani HWigianto R, Kawamoto N, Matsumoto N . Pilot-hole preparation for proper implant positioning and the enhancement of bone formation. J Oral Implantol. 1995; 21(4):318-24. View

Lin M, Mau L, Cochran D, Shieh Y, Huang P, Huang R . Risk assessment of inferior alveolar nerve injury for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a virtual implant placement study. J Dent. 2014; 42(3):263-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.014. View

10.

Parnia F, Moslehi Fard E, Mahboub F, Hafezeqoran A, Gavgani F . Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 109(1):e32-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.035. View

11.

Philipsen H, Takata T, Reichart P, Sato S, Suei Y . Lingual and buccal mandibular bone depressions: a review based on 583 cases from a world-wide literature survey, including 69 new cases from Japan. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002; 31(5):281-90. DOI: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600718. View

12.

Chau A, Fung K . Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107(4):559-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.11.009. View

13.

Chan H, Benavides E, Yeh C, Fu J, Rudek I, Wang H . Risk assessment of lingual plate perforation in posterior mandibular region: a virtual implant placement study using cone-beam computed tomography. J Periodontol. 2010; 82(1):129-35. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100313. View

14.

Chan H, Brooks S, Fu J, Yeh C, Rudek I, Wang H . Cross-sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 22(2):201-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02018.x. View

15.

Tyndall D, Brooks S . Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 89(5):630-7. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2000.106336. View

16.

Dubois L, de Lange J, Baas E, van Ingen J . Excessive bleeding in the floor of the mouth after endosseus implant placement: a report of two cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 39(4):412-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.07.062. View

17.

Watanabe H, Mohammad Abdul M, Kurabayashi T, Aoki H . Mandible size and morphology determined with CT on a premise of dental implant operation. Surg Radiol Anat. 2009; 32(4):343-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-009-0570-3. View

18.

Uchida Y, Goto M, Danjo A, Yamashita Y, Kuraoka A . Anatomic measurement of the depth and location of the sublingual fossa. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 41(12):1571-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.03.015. View

19.

Woo B, Al-Bustani S, Ueeck B . Floor of mouth haemorrhage and life-threatening airway obstruction during immediate implant placement in the anterior mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 35(10):961-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2006.03.020. View

20.

Quirynen M, Mraiwa N, van Steenberghe D, Jacobs R . Morphology and dimensions of the mandibular jaw bone in the interforaminal region in patients requiring implants in the distal areas. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14(3):280-5. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140305.x. View