Assessing the Variations of the Depth and Angle of the Submandibular Gland Fossa and the Mandibular Canal Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Submandibular Gland Fossa assessment using CBCT
Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration (Triple R),
Vol. 9 (2024),
1 Dey 2024
https://doi.org/10.22037/rrr.v9.44263
Abstract
Background and objectives: The most important anatomical areas to take into account during implant insertion are the submandibular gland cavity, the posterior part of the mandible, and the inferior alveolar nerve. Therefore, this study aims to assess the location of the submandibular gland fossa and its variations using CBCT.
Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional investigation, CBCT images of the mandible of patients who visited a private radiology center in Babol (Mazandaran, Iran) between 2019 and 2021 were included. The submandibular salivary gland fossa was evaluated based on age, sex, side of the mandible, fossa depth and angle, as well as connection with the mental foramen and mandibular canal. Data were analyzed using SPSS V.24.
Results: The study population comprised 59 men (47.2%) and 66 (52.8%) women, ranging from 16 to 70 years old. The mean depth of the fossa on the right side (1.79 ± 0.48 mm) was statistically greater than the left side (1.66 ± 0.46 mm). Regarding the angle of the fossa and the distance to the mental foramen, there was no discernible difference between the left and right sides. Men had considerably deeper average fossa depths on both sides (P<0.05). Moreover, the fossa depth on the right side was significantly lower in patients less than 36 years old (P=0.005).
Conclusion: According to the current findings, the average depth of the fossa is greater on the right side than on the left side. The deepest part of the fossa is located next to the mandibular canal. Therefore, it is crucial to have a thorough understanding of the characteristics of the submandibular gland fossa to avoid perforating the lingual alveolar plate during implant insertion.
Keywords: Cone Beam Computed Tomography, CBCT, Dental implant, Submandibular gland fossa.
- Submandibular Gland Fossa, Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), Dental Implant
How to Cite
References
Tomasi C, Derks J. Etiology, occurrence, and consequences of implant loss. Periodontology 2000. 2022;88(1):13-35.
Nickenig H-J, Wichmann M, Eitner S, Zoeller JE, Kreppel M. Lingual concavities in the mandible: a morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2015;43(2):254-9.
Haghanifar S, Arbabzadegan N, Moudi E, Bijani A, Nozari F. Evaluation of lingual mandibular depression of the submandibular salivary glands using cone-beam computed tomography. Res Med Dent Sci. 2018;6:563-7.
SADEGHI F, MIRHADI S, MALEKZADEH J, GHOLAMI SA. Evaluation of Submandibular Gland Fossa Variety by CBCT in Patient Referring to Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Center in Yasuj in the Academic Year of 2017-2018. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research (09752366). 2020;12(1).
Borahan M, Dönmez F, Ulay G, Sadıkoğlu A, Pekiner F. Assesment of submandibular fossa depth using cone beam computed tomography. Yeditepe Dental Journal. 2018;14:51-6.
Chan HL, Benavides E, Yeh CY, Fu JH, Rudek IE, Wang HL. Risk assessment of lingual plate perforation in posterior mandibular region: a virtual implant placement study using cone‐beam computed tomography. Journal of periodontology. 2011;82(1):129-35.
Saha N, Nair V. Role of CBCT in Dental Implant Treatment Plan: A Review. Journal of Medicine and Health Research. 2023:1-5.
de Souza LA, Assis NMSP, Ribeiro RA, Carvalho ACP, Devito KL. Assessment of mandibular posterior regional landmarks using cone-beam computed tomography in dental implant surgery. Annals of Anatomy-Anatomischer Anzeiger. 2016;205:53-9.
Yoon TY, Patel M, Michaud RA, Manibo AM. Cone beam computerized tomography analysis of the posterior and anterior mandibular lingual concavity for dental implant patients. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2017;43(1):12-8.
Ramaswamy P, Saikiran C, Raju BM, Swathi M, Teja DD. Evaluation of the depth of submandibular gland fossa and its correlation with mandibular canal in vertical and horizontal locations using CBCT. Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology. 2020;32(1):22.
Bayrak S, Demirturk-Kocasarac H, Yaprak E, Ustaoglu G, Noujeim M. Correlation between the visibility of submandibular fossa and mandibular canal cortication on panoramic radiographs and submandibular fossa depth on CBCT. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2018;23(1):e105-e11.
Yildiz S, Bayar GR, Guvenc I, Kocabiyik N, Cömert A. Tomographic evaluation on bone morphology in posterior mandibular region for safe placement of dental implant. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 2015;37(2):167-73.
Parnia F, Fard EM, Mahboub F, Hafezeqoran A, Gavgani FE. Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2010;109(1):e32-e6.
Vhatkar BS, Shetty NK, Waghmare MS, Pagare SS, Vahanwala SP, Santosh V. Submandibular Gland Fossa Assessment with Cone Beam Computed Tomography. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY. 2019;7(4):53-7.
Kamburoğlu K, Acar B, Yüksel S, Paksoy CS. CBCT quantitative evaluation of mandibular lingual concavities in dental implant patients. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 2015;37(10):1209-15.
Panjnoush M, Eil N, Kheirandish Y, Mofidi N, Shamshiri AR. Evaluation of the concavity depth and inclination in jaws using CBCT. Caspian Journal of Dental Research. 2016;5(2):17-23.
Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH, Yeh CY, Rudek I, Wang HL. Cross‐sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clinical oral implants research. 2011;22(2):201-6.
Alsharif SB, Bahanan L, Almutairi M, Alshammry S, Khalifa H. RETROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF DENTAL IMPLANT-RELATED ANATOMICAL STRUCTURE PERFORATIONS USING CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY. Annals of Dental Specialty Vol. 2023;11(1):22.
- Abstract Viewed: 8 times
- PDF Downloaded: 2 times