The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Assessment of Lingual Concavities in Submandibular Fossa Region in Patients requiring Dental Implants– A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

Sandeep Mehta, Prabhjot Kaur, Anuj S Parihar, Tarun Vyas, Shivakshi Chansoria, Bhoopendera S Rajput

Keywords : Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Implant, Submandibular fossa

Citation Information : Mehta S, Kaur P, Parihar AS, Vyas T, Chansoria S, Rajput BS. Assessment of Lingual Concavities in Submandibular Fossa Region in Patients requiring Dental Implants– A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (11):1329-1333.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2427

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-11-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The present study was aimed at assessing the lingual concavities in the submandibular fossa region in patients requiring dental implants with the help of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: The present study included 140 patients who visited the department with the missing mandibular posterior teeth. CBCT images were obtained using planmeca machine. Cross sections of 1 mm of submandibular fossa in the region of 1st and 2nd molar were studied and Type I to III lingual concavities were analyzed by a radiologist. Results: Type I lingual concavity (< 2 mm) was seen in 23%, type II (2–3 mm) in 62% and Type III (> 3 mm) in 15% of patients. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). Males had slightly higher mean ± S.D value at 1st molar (2.6 mm ± 0.94) and 2nd molar (2.8 mm ± 0.90) on the left side and (2.7 mm ± 0.92) at 1st molar and (2.9 mm ± 0.93) at 2nd molar on the right side. The difference was nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Females had mean ± S.D value at 1st molar (2.3 mm ± 0.90) and (2.5 mm ± 0.92) at 2nd molar on the left side and (2.4 mm ± 0.91) at 1st molar and (2.8 mm ± 0.93) at 2nd molar. The difference was nonsignificant (p > 0.05. The difference between both genders was statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Type I bone is the best for placing an implant. The chances of complications are more in type II and III bone. CBCT provides necessary information before planning implant in the edentulous area. Clinical significance: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the best radiographic aid which is effective in delineating different types of bone in the mandibular posterior region.


PDF Share
  1. Gahleitner A, Hofschneider U, Tepper G, Pretterklieber M, Schick S, Zauza K, et al. Lingual vascular canals of the mandible: evaluation with dental CT. Radiology. 2001; 220:186-189.
  2. Isaacson TJ. Sublingual hematoma formation during immediate placement of mandibular endosseous implants. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004; 135:168-172.
  3. Kalpidis CD, Konstantinidis AB. Critical hemorrhage in the floor of the mouth during implant placement in the first mandibular premolar position: a case report. Implant Dent. 2005; 14:117-124.
  4. Jung T. Study of fovea submandibularis during pre-implant diagnostics. J Friadent Implant 2004; 1:34-37.
  5. American Academy of Implant Dentistry. Glossary of implant terms. J Oral Implantol. 1986; 12:284-294.
  6. Chen, L.C., Lundgren, T., Hallstrom, H. & Cherel, F. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. Journal of Periodontology. 2008; 79: 401-405.
  7. Chau ACM, 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; 107:559–565.
  8. Parnia F, Fard EM, Mahboub F, Hafezeqoran A, Gavgani FE. Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 109:32-36.
  9. 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.
  10. 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. 2010; 32:343-349.
  11. Froum S, Casanova L, Byrne S, Cho SC. Risk assessment before extraction for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a computerized tomographic scan study. J Periodontol. 2011; 82:395-402.
  12. Hofschneider U, Tepper G, Gahleitner A, Ulm C. Assessment of the blood supply to the mental region for reduction of bleeding complications during implant surgery in the interformainal region. Inj J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14:379-383.
  13. Lin MH, Mau LP, Cochran DL, Shieh YS, Huang PH, Huang RY. Risk assessment of inferior alveolar nerve injury for immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a virtual implant placement study. J Dent. 2014;
  14. Lofthag-Hansen S, Grondahl K, Ekestubbe A. Cone-beam CT for preoperative implant planning in the posterior mandible: visibility of anatomic landmarks. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009; 11:246-255.
  15. Givol N, Chaushu G, Halamish-Shani T, Taicher S. Emergency tracheostomy following life-threatening hemorrhage in the floor of the mouth during immediate implant placement in the mandibular canine region. J Periodontol. 2000;7 1: 1893-1895.
  16. Cantekin K, Sekerci AE, Miloglu O, Buyuk SK. Identification of the mandibular landmarks in a pediatric population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014; 19:136-141.
  17. 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; 41:1571-1576.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.