Investigation of the Relationship of Dental Implants in the Mandible with the Lingual Foramen by Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Objective: The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the relationship of dental implants made in the mandible with the lingual foramen by typing according to the safety margin. Material method: In our study, images taken with a Planmeca 3D Mid (ProMax, Helsinki, Finland) cone-beam computed tomography device between 2017-2021 were used. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to examine the suitability of the available data for normal distribution. Relationships between categorical variables were calculated with the 'Chi-square test'. Results: Cone beam computed tomography images of 450 implants in the mandible were evaluated in multiplanar planes in a total of 250 patients, 110 (44%) men and 140 (56%) women. According to the evaluation of the implants with the lingual foramen, type 1; 0 (0.0%), type 2; 3 (0.7%), type 3; It was determined as 30 (6.7%). Conclusion: No relationship was observed with the lingual foramen in 92.7% of the implants. There was no statistically significant difference between the lingual foramen and typing according to gender.

Keywords:

Cone beam computed tomography, mandible dental implant, lingual foramen,

PDF

___

1. McDonnell D, Nouri MR, Todd M. The mandibular lingual foramen: a consistent arterial foramen in the middle of the mandible. J Anat. 1994;184( 2):363.
2. Tagaya A, Matsuda Y, Nakajima K, Seki K, Okano T. Assessment of the blood supply to the lingual surface of the mandible for reduction of bleeding during implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(4):351-5.
3. Jacobs R, Lambrichts I, Liang X, Martens W, Mraiwa N, Adriaensens P, et al. Neurovascularization of the anterior jaw bones revisited using highresolution magnetic resonance imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;103(5):683-93.
4. Pommer B, Tepper G, Gahleitner A, Zechner W, Watzek G. New safety margins for chin bone harvesting based on the course of the mandibular incisive canal in CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(12):1312-6.
5. Liang X, Jacobs R, Lambrichts I, Vandewalle G. Lingual foramina on the mandibular midline revisited: a macroanatomical study. Clin Anat. 2007;20(3):246-51.
6. Madeira MC, Percinoto C, Maria das Graças MS. Clinical significance of supplementary innervation of the lower incisor teeth: a dissection study of the mylohyoid nerve. . Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1978;46(5):608-14.
7. Mraiwa N, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. Clinical assessment and surgical implications of anatomic challenges in the anterior mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(4):219-25.
8. Lascala C, Panella J, Marques M. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCTNewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33(5):291-4.
9. Sbordone L, Menchini-Fabris G, Toti P, Sbordone C, Califano L, Guidetti F. Clinical survey of neurosensory side-effects of mandibular parasymphyseal bone harvesting. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38(2):139-45.
10. Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:393-415.
11. Celik E. İmplant Uygulamalarında Diagnostik Protezler. Turkiye Klinikleri J Prosthodont-Special Topics. 2016;2(3):45-51.
12. Liaw K, Delfini RH, Abrahams JJ. Dental Implant Complications. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2015; 36: 427-33.
13. Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(4).
14. Langland OE, Langlais RP. Early pioneers of oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995;80(5):496-511.
15. Genc T. Radiological Evaluation of Anatomical Structures and Variations in Maxilla and Mandible Before Dental Implant Treatment. 2014.