4.2 Article

Evaluation of Size and Location of a Mental Foramen in the Polish Population Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

期刊

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 2019, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2019/1659476

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. The mental foramen (MF) is a bilateral opening localized on an anterior surface of the mandible. A precise location as well as well-defined shape, size, and number of the MF is crucial for different clinical dental procedures. The aim of this study was to determine a size and location of the MF in relation to the lower teeth using the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study. Material and Methods. In a group of 201 patients (106 males and 95 females) the CBCT images were performed using the GX CB-500 device (Gendex, USA). Results. No significant differences in values of the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) diameters as well as the H: V ratio on both sides in relation to the age of participants were found. In males both average values of a horizontal diameter (p=0.031) and vertical diameter (p=0.001) were significantly higher on the right side than in the female subgroup, whereas on the left side only an average value of a vertical diameter was significantly higher in men (p=0.006) in comparison to women. Moreover, the H: V ratio was significantly lower in males on the left side (p=0.032). There were no significant relationships between age and gender of the patients (p>0.05) and the type of mental foramen on the right and left sides. Conclusions. The application of the CBCT study enabled a precise determination of the shape, size, and position of the mental foramen in relation to the neighboring anatomical structures on a representative group of the Polish patients. The results obtained may contribute to guidelines for dental procedures including anesthesia of the mental nerve and endodontic, implantology, and dental surgery with regard to the location of mental foramen depending on the sex and age of patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据