Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Dentistry
Volume 2014, Article ID 187085, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/187085
Research Article

Assessment of the Mandibular Incisive Canal by Panoramic Radiograph and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

1Discipline of General Pathology, University of São Caetano do Sul (USCS), São Caetano do Sul, SP, Brazil
2São Leopoldo Mandic Dental Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil
3Instituto de Documentação Ortodôntica e Radiodiagnóstico (INDOR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
4Discipline of Radiology, Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (FOUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Received 29 June 2014; Revised 10 August 2014; Accepted 10 August 2014; Published 23 September 2014

Academic Editor: Francesco Carinci

Copyright © 2014 Ricardo Raitz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives. The region between mental foramens is considered as a zone of choice for implants. However, complications may arise due to an extension anterior to the mental foramen that forms the mandible incisive canal [MIC]. Our goal is to evaluate identification of MIC by both panoramic radiograph [PAN] and cone-beam computed tomography [CBCT]. Methods. 150 cases with bilateral MIC were analyzed. Images of a radiolucent canal, within the trabecular bone, surrounded by a radiopaque cortical bone representing the canal walls, and extending to the anterior portion beyond the mental foramen, were considered by two independent radiologists as being images of MIC. PAN and CBCT of these cases were evaluated by 2 other radiologists at different times. Agreement between results of examination methods was assessed by the Kappa coefficient. The interexaminer and intramethod rates for detection of MIC were analyzed by the McNemar test. Gender, mandible side, examiner, and type of method were analyzed by the generalized estimating equations [GEE] model. Results. significant difference between examiners [PAN: ; CBCT: ] was not observed. Analysis by GEE model showed no significant difference between genders and examiners . However, significant difference was observed for identification in both mandible right side , where the identification frequency was higher, and CBCT method . Conclusions. PAN was not shown to be a safe examination to identify MIC. CBCT should always be used in preoperative planning and to reduce the number of complications in implant surgeries.