Mehmet DEMİRKOL, Mustafa YALCİN, Eda Didem YALCİN

Which impacted mandibular third molar positions or bone morphology shapes can have greater risk of accidental displacement of tooth roots into the sublingual soft tissues?

Aim: We aimed to find out which impacted mandibular third molar (3M) positions or bone morphology types at the 3M site could leadto the potential risk of accidental displacement of 3M root fragments into the sublingual soft tissues.Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 103 patients with an impacted mandibular 3M (vertical, mesioangular, or horizontalposition) seen on at least one side using cone beam computed tomography images. The bone morphology at the 3M sites wereclassified as round shape, lingual concavity, and lingual extended. The relationship between the roots and the sublingual soft tissueswas classified as: 1) type A, in which some amount of bone appears between the root and the soft tissues; 2) type B, in which the rootapex is located at the lingual cortical plate; and 3) type C, in which the root apex has penetrated into the soft tissues.Results: Binary logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of lingual extended bone morphology are 2.61 times greater forpotential root displacement in combined types B and C, compared to round shape.Conclusion: These results suggest that impacted mandibular 3Ms with the lingual extended morphology type are more likely tocause root fragment displacement into the sublingual soft tissues.

PDF

___

1. Susarla SM, Blaeser BF, Magalnick D. Third molar surgery and associated complications. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2003;15:177-86.
2. Leung YY, Cheung LK. Risk factors of neurosensory deficits in lower third molar surgery: an literature review of prospective studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40:1-10.
3. Aznar-Arasa L, Figueiredo R, Gay-Escoda C. Iatrogenic displacement of lower third molar roots into the sublingual space: report of 6 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70: 107-15.
4. Bui CH, Seldin EB, Dodson TB. Types, frequencies, and risk factors for complications after third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:379-89.
5. Huang IY, Wu CW, Worthington P. The displaced lower third molar: A literature review and suggestions for management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1186-90.
6. Quereshy FA, Savell TA, Palomo JM. Applications of cone beam computed tomography in the practice of oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:791-6.
7. Loubele M, Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, et al. A comparison of jaw dimensional and quality assessments of bone characteristics with cone-beam CT, spiral tomography, and multi-slice spiral CT. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:446-54.
8. Paknahad M, Shahidi S, Bahrampour E, et al. Cone Beam Computed tomographic evaluation of mandibular asymmetry in patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018;55:919-24.
9. Aytugar E, Özeren C, Lacin N, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of accessory mental foramen in a Turkish population. Anat Sci Int 2019;94:257-65.
10. Gu L, Zhu C, Chen K, et al. Anatomic study of the position of the mandibular canal and corresponding mandibular third molar on cone-beam computed tomography images. Surg Radiol Anat 2018;40:609-14.
11. Gurani SF, Di Carlo G, Thorn JJ, et al. Two-year postoperative upper airway cone-beam computed tomographic outcomes based on a verified upper airway analysis following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:1435-45.
12. Benic GI, Thoma DS, Jung RE, et al. Guided bone regeneration with particulate vs. block xenogenic bone substitutes: a pilot cone beam computed tomographic investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:262-70.
13. Pell GJ, Gregory B. Impacted mandibular third molars: classification and modified techniques for removal. Dent Digest 1933;39:330-8.
14. Winter GB. Impacted mandibular third molars. St Louis, USA: American Medical Book Co; 1926.
15. Momin MA, Matsumoto K, Ejima K, et al. 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;35:311-8.
16. Emes Y, Oncu B, Aybar B, et al. Measurement of the lingual position of the lower third molar roots using cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73:13-7.
17. Mallick A, Vidya KC, Waran A, et al. Measurement of lingual cortical plate thickness and lingual position of lower third molar roots using cone beam computed tomography. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017;7:8- 12.
18. Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Eitner S, et al. Lingual concavities in the mandible: A morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:254-9.
19. Maroldi R, Farina D, Ravanelli M, et al. Emergency imaging assessment of deep neck space infections. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2012;33:432-42.
20. Tolstunov L, Brickeen M, Kamanin V, et al. Is the angulation of mandibular third molars associated with the thickness of lingual bone? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;54:914-9.
21. Flanagan D. A comparison of facial and lingual cortical thicknesses in edentulous maxillary and mandibular sites measured on computerized tomograms. J Oral Implantol 2008;34:256-8.
22. Horner KA, Behrents RG, Kim KB, et al. Cortical bone and ridge thickness of hyperdivergent and hypodivergent adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:170-8.
23. Swasty D, Lee JS, Huang JC, et al. Anthropometric analysis of the human mandibular cortical bone as assessed by cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:491-500.