Mandibular üçüncü molarların lingual kortikal kemik kalınlıklarının KIBT ile değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, mandibular üçüncü molarların lingual kortikal kemik kalınlıklarını ölçmek ve bu kalınlığın diş pozisyonu ile ilişkisini araştırmaktır.Yöntem: Gömülü üçüncü molar dişleri içeren 649 konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntüsü çalışmaya dahil edildi. Her bir dişin kron ve kök ucunun lingual yumuşak dokulara olan en yakın mesafesi ölçüldü. Gömülü dişler mezyoanguler, distoanguler, vertikal, horizontal ve bukkolingual pozisyonda gömülü olmak üzere gruplandırıldı. Dişler ayrıca yumuşak dokuya olan mesafelerine gore A, B ve C tipi olmak üzere gruplandırıldı.Bulgular: Altı yüz kırk dokuz dişten, 590’ı (%90,9)A tipi, 21’i (%3,2) B tipi ve 38’i (%5,9) C tipi ilişki gösterdi. Bu dişlerden 302’si mezyoanguler, 141’i distoanguler, 107’si horizontal, 86’sı vertikal, 13’ü bukkolingual pozisyonda gömülüydü. Dişlerin pozisyonları ve lingual yumuşak dokulara mesafeleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamadı.Sonuç: Mandibular üçüncü molarların lingual kemik kalınlıklarının çok ince olduğundan şüphelenilen, iki boyutlu görüntülemenin yetersiz kaldığı çok nadir vakada, üç boyutlu radyografik değerlendirme cerrahi işlemlerden önce komplikasyon riskini öngörmeyi sağlayabilir.

Evaluation of lingual cortical bone thickness of the mandibular third molars using CBCT

Objectives: The aim of the study was to measure the lingual cortical bone thickness of the mandibular third molars, and to investigate its relationship with the tooth position.Methods: Cone beam computerized tomography images which contained a total of 649 impacted mandibular third molars were included in the study. The closest distance of the crown and root tip of each tooth to the lingual soft tissues was measured. The impacted teeth were grouped as mesioangular, distoangular, vertical, horizontal, and buccolingual impaction. The teeth were also grouped as type A, B, and C relation according to their distance to lingual soft tissues.Results: Of the total 649 teeth, 590 (90.9%) showed type A relation, 21 (3.2%) type B relation and 38 (5.9%) type C relation. Of these teeth, 302 were impacted in mesioangular, 141 in distoangular, 107 in horizontal, 86 in vertical, 13 in buccolingual position. No significant difference was found between the positions of the teeth and their distance to lingual soft tissues statistically.Conclusion: Three dimensional radiographic evaluation may provide for predicting the complications before surgical procedures in very rare occasions in which the lingual bone thickness of mandibular third molars is suspected to be very thin that cannot be answered by 2D imaging.

PDF

___

[1] Mavrodi A, Ohanyan A, Kechagias N, Tsekos A, Vahtsevanos K. Influence of two different surgical techniques on the difficulty of impacted lower third molar extraction and their post-operative complications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015; 20: e640-644.
[2] de Boer MP, Raghoebar GM, Stegenga B, Schoen PJ, Boering G. Complications after mandibular third molar extraction. Quintessence Int 1995; 26: 779- 784.
[3] 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: 13-17.
[4] Guo Y, Xu DD, Lv K, Wan QL, Li ZB, Li Z. Use of Computer-Assisted Navigation in the Retrieval of Accidentally Displaced Third Molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74: 889-894.
[5] 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: e107-115.
[6] Korkmaz YT, Kayıpmaz S, Senel FC, Atasoy KT, Gumrukcu Z. Does additional cone beam computed tomography decrease the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury in high-risk cases undergoing third molar surgery? Does CBCT decrease the risk of IAN injury? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 628-635.
[7] Hasani A, Ahmadi Moshtaghin F, Roohi P, Rakhshan V. Diagnostic value of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in predicting mandibular nerve exposure during third molar surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 230-235.
[8] Tolstunov L, Brickeen M, Kamanin V, Susarla SM, Selvi F. Is the angulation of mandibular third molars associated with the thickness of lingual bone? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54: 914-919.
[9] Ge J, Zheng JW, Yang C, Qian WT. Variations in the buccal-lingual alveolar bone thickness of impacted mandibular third molar: our classification and treatment perspectives. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 16375.
[10] Menziletoglu D, Tassoker M, Kubilay-Isik B, Esen A. The assesment of relationship between the angulation of impacted mandibular third molar teeth and the thickness of lingual bone: A prospective clinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019;24:e130-e135.
[11] Winter G.B. Impacted mandibular third molars. St Louis: American Medical Book Co., 1926, 241–279.
[12] Øyri H, Bjørnland T, Barkvoll P, Jensen JL. Mandibular third molar surgery in 396 patients at a Norwegian university clinic: Morbidity recorded after 1 week utilizing an e-infrastructure for clinical research. Acta Odontol Scand 2016; 74: 148-154.
[13] Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Eitner S, Zöller JE, Kreppel M. Lingual concavities in the mandible: a morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43: 254-259.
[14] Kamburoğlu K, Acar B, Yüksel S, Paksoy CS. CBCT quantitative evaluation of mandibular lingual concavities in dental implant patients. Surg Radiol Anat 2015; 37: 1209-1215.