مجله جهانی جراحی پلاستیک
مجله جهانی جراحی پلاستیک
جمعه 31 فروردین 1403
[Archive]
دوره 12، شماره 2 - ( 1402 )
جلد 12 شماره 2 صفحات 19-11 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Samieirad S, Aryana M, Mazandarani A, Toupkanloo I M, Eidi M, Moqarabzadeh V, et al . Prevalence of Bifid Mandibular Canal: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. WJPS 2023; 12 (2) :11-19
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1071-fa.html
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1071-fa.html
Prevalence of Bifid Mandibular Canal: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. مجله جهانی جراحی پلاستیک. 1402; 12 (2) :11-19
چکیده: (1121 مشاهده)
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of bifid mandibular canal (BMC) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic images through meta-analysis.
Methods: Databases of Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched to find the relevant studies. Studies the met the inclusion criteria were selected. Variables of prevalence, side, length and diameter of BMC and sex were assessed. Data was analyzed using STATA software version 17.
Results: Of the 1164 articles initially selected, 36 were enrolled. A total of 38077 patients were considered. The overall prevalence of BMC was 18.0%. Studies that evaluated CBCT images reported higher prevalence of BMC compared to panoramic images (25.0% vs 3.0%). The prevalence of BMC was higher in men than women and slightly higher in right side than the left side of the jaw, but none of those differences were significant.
Conclusion: The results have shown a total prevalence of 18.0% for BMC. Detection power of CBCT images were higher than panoramics. There was no significant relation between prevalence of BMC with sex or side of the jaw.
Methods: Databases of Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched to find the relevant studies. Studies the met the inclusion criteria were selected. Variables of prevalence, side, length and diameter of BMC and sex were assessed. Data was analyzed using STATA software version 17.
Results: Of the 1164 articles initially selected, 36 were enrolled. A total of 38077 patients were considered. The overall prevalence of BMC was 18.0%. Studies that evaluated CBCT images reported higher prevalence of BMC compared to panoramic images (25.0% vs 3.0%). The prevalence of BMC was higher in men than women and slightly higher in right side than the left side of the jaw, but none of those differences were significant.
Conclusion: The results have shown a total prevalence of 18.0% for BMC. Detection power of CBCT images were higher than panoramics. There was no significant relation between prevalence of BMC with sex or side of the jaw.
فهرست منابع
1. Fuentes R, Arias A, Farfán C, et al. Morphological variations of the mandibular canal in digital panoramic radiographs: a retrospective study in a Chilean population. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;78(1):163-70.
2. de Freitas GB, de Morais Silva PG, dos Santos JA, Júnior LRCM, Bernardon P. Prevalence and classification of anatomical variations of mandibular canal in panoramic radiographies. J Health Sci 2020;10(2):133-8. [DOI:10.17532/jhsci.2020.888]
3. Kuczynski A, Kucharski W, Franco A, Westphalen FH, de Lima AAS, Fernandes Â. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canals in panoramic radiographs: a maxillofacial surgical scope. Surg Radiol Anat 2014;36(9):847-50. [DOI:10.1007/s00276-014-1298-2]
4. Haas LF, Dutra K, Porporatti AL, et al. Anatomical variations of mandibular canal detected by panoramic radiography and CT: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016;45(2):20150310. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20150310]
5. Öztürk A, Tayman A, Potluri A. Observation of double mandibular canals and types of bifid canals in dry skulls. Balk J Dent Med 2020;24(2):107-12. [DOI:10.2478/bjdm-2020-0018]
6. Orhan K, Aksoy S, Bilecenoglu B, Sakul BU, Paksoy CS. Evaluation of bifid mandibular canals with cone-beam computed tomography in a Turkish adult population: a retrospective study. Surg Radiol Anat 2011 Aug;33(6):501-7. [DOI:10.1007/s00276-010-0761-y]
7. Rashsuren O, Choi J-W, Han W-J, Kim E-K. Assessment of bifid and trifid mandibular canals using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2014;44(3):229-36. [DOI:10.5624/isd.2014.44.3.229]
8. Kang J-H, Lee K-S, Oh M-G, et al. The incidence and configuration of the bifid mandibular canal in Koreans by using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2014;44(1):53-60. [DOI:10.5624/isd.2014.44.1.53]
9. Correr GM, Iwanko D, Leonardi DP, Ulbrich LM, Araujo MRd, Deliberador TM. Classification of bifid mandibular canals using cone beam computed tomography. Braz Oral Res 2013;27:510-6. [DOI:10.1590/S1806-83242013000600011]
10. Naitoh M, Hiraiwa Y, Aimiya H, et al. Bifid mandibular canal in Japanese. Implant Dent 2007 Mar;16(1):24-32. [DOI:10.1097/ID.0b013e3180312323]
11. Chávez-Lomeli M, Mansilla Lory J, Pompa J, Kjaer I. The human mandibular canal arises from three separate canals innervating different tooth groups. J Dent Res 1996;75(8):1540-4. [DOI:10.1177/00220345960750080401]
12. Okumuş Ö, Dumlu A. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canal according to gender, type and side. J Dent Sci 2019 Jun;14(2):126-33. [DOI:10.1016/j.jds.2019.03.009]
13. Muinelo-Lorenzo J, Suárez-Quintanilla J, Fernández-Alonso A, Marsillas-Rascado S, Suárez-Cunqueiro M. Descriptive study of the bifid mandibular canals and retromolar foramina: cone beam CT vs panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;43(5):20140090. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20140090]
14. Zhang Y-Q, Zhao Y-N, Liu D-G, Meng Y, Ma X-C. Bifid variations of the mandibular canal: cone beam computed tomography evaluation of 1000 Northern Chinese patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2018;126(5):271-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.oooo.2018.06.008]
15. Fu E, Peng M, Chiang CY, Tu HP, Lin YS, Shen EC. Bifid mandibular canals and the factors associated with their presence: a medical computed tomography evaluation in a Taiwanese population. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014 Feb;25(2):64-7. [DOI:10.1111/clr.12049]
16. Kim M, Yoon S, Park H, et al. A false presence of bifid mandibular canals in panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40(7):434-8. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/87414410]
17. de Oliveira-Santos C, Souza PHC, de Azambuja Berti-Couto S, et al. Assessment of variations of the mandibular canal through cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(2):387-93. [DOI:10.1007/s00784-011-0544-9]
18. Naitoh M, Hiraiwa Y, Aimiya H, Ariji E. Observation of bifid mandibular canal using cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009 Jan-Feb;24(1):155-9. [DOI:10.1097/ID.0b013e3180312323]
19. Karamifar K, Shahidi S, Tondari A. Bilateral bifid mandibular canal: report of two cases. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20(2):235-7. [DOI:10.4103/0970-9290.52889]
20. Neves FS, Nascimento MCC, Oliveira ML, Almeida SM, Bóscolo FN. Comparative analysis of mandibular anatomical variations between panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;18(4):419-24. [DOI:10.1007/s10006-013-0428-z]
21. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. PRISMA Group. Reprint-preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and met-analyses: the PRISMA statemet. Phys Ther 2009;89:873-80. [DOI:10.1093/ptj/89.9.873]
22. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Stat Med 2002;21(11):1539-58. [DOI:10.1002/sim.1186]
23. Palma LF, Buck AF, Kfouri F, Blachman IT, Lombardi LA, Cavalli MA. Evaluation of retromolar canals on cone beam computerized tomography scans and digital panoramic radiographs. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017 Sep;21(3):307-12. [DOI:10.1007/s10006-017-0632-3]
24. Grover PS, Lorton L. Bifid Mandibular Nerve as a Possible Cause of Inadequate Anesthesia in the Mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1983;41(3):177-9. [DOI:10.1016/0278-2391(83)90076-9]
25. Tassoker M, Sener S. Investigation of the Prevalence of Retromolar Canals: A Cone Beam CT Study. Int J Morphol 2017 Dec;35(4):1298-302. [DOI:10.4067/S0717-95022017000401298]
26. Genc T, Duruel O, Kutlu HB, Dursun E, Karabulut E, Tözüm T. Evaluation of anatomical structures and variations in the maxilla and the mandible before dental implant treatment. Dent Med Probl 2018;55(3):233-40. [DOI:10.17219/dmp/94303]
27. Shahi S, Rahimi S, Yavari HR, Ghasemi N, Ahmadi F. Success Rate of 3 Injection Methods with Articaine for Mandibular First Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A CONSORT Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial. J Endod 2018;44(10):1462-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2018.07.010]
28. Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S, Kohli S. Comparative evaluation of mental incisal nerve block, inferior alveolar nerve block, and their combination on the anesthetic success rate in symptomatic mandibular premolars: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Endod 2016;42(6):843-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2016.02.015]
29. Rouas P, Nancy J, Bar D. Identification of double mandibular canals: literature review and three case reports with CT scans and cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36(1):34-8. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/27374727]
30. Bogdán S, Huszar T, Joób AF, Németh Z, Pataky L, Barabás J. The clinical importance of the mandibular canal course variations. Fogorvosi szemle 2006;99(4):169-73.
31. Güler A, Sumer M, Sumer P, Biçer I. The evaluation of vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular bones and the location of anatomic landmarks in panoramic radiographs of edentulous patients for implant dentistry. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(10):741-6. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01499.x]
32. Gomes ACA, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, de Oliveira Silva ED, de França Caldas Jr A, Neto ICP. Sensitivity and specificity of pantomography to predict inferior alveolar nerve damage during extraction of impacted lower third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66(2):256-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2007.08.020]
33. Zhou X, Gao X, Zhang J. Bifid mandibular canals: CBCT assessment and macroscopic observation. Surg Radiol Anat 2020 Sep;42(9):1073-9. [DOI:10.1007/s00276-020-02489-5]
34. Chanda S, Manoj R, Ramaswami E, Santosh V, Waghmare M, Vahanwala S. Anatomical variations of mandibular canal using cone-beam computed tomography-A retrospective study. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2021 Apr-Jun;33(2):183-8. [DOI:10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_229_20]
35. Elnadoury EA, Gaweesh YSE, Abu El Sadat SM, Anwar SK. Prevalence of bifid and trifid mandibular canals with unusual patterns of nerve branching using cone beam computed tomography. Odontology 2021 Jul 15;110:203-11. [DOI:10.1007/s10266-021-00638-9]
36. Qaid N, Aldilami A, Al-Jawfi K, Shamala A. Prevalence and morphological assessment of bifid mandibular canal using cone beam computed tomography among a group of yemeni adults. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2021;33(3):242-7. [DOI:10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_218_20]
37. Dedeoglu N, Duman SB. Prevalence of Bifid Mandibular Canals in Turkish Eastern Anatolia Population: A Retrospective Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2020 Feb;14(2):13-7. [DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2020/42721.13508]
38. Nithya J, Aswath N. Assessing the Prevalence and Morphological Characteristics of Bifid Mandibular Canal Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. J Clin Imaging Sci 2020;10:30. [DOI:10.25259/JCIS_67_2019]
39. Panahi S, Moradi Seifabad Z, Sabz G. Frequency of Bifid Mandibular Canals and it's Relationship with Third Molar Teeth in Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBTT). Armaghane Danesh 2020;25(2):256-63. [DOI:10.52547/armaghanj.25.2.256]
40. de Castro MAA, Barra SG, Vich MOL, Abreu MHG, Mesquita RA. Mandibular canal branching assessed with cone beam computed tomography. La radiologia medica 2018;123(8):601-8. [DOI:10.1007/s11547-018-0886-3]
41. Yoon TYH, Robinson DK, Estrin NE, Tagg DT, Michaud RA, Dinh TN. Utilization of cone beam computed tomography to determine the prevalence and anatomical characteristics of bifurcated inferior alveolar nerves. Gen Dent 2018 Jul-Aug;66(4):22-6.
42. Afsa M, Rahmati H. Branching of mandibular canal on cone beam computed tomography images. Singapore Dent J 2017;38:21-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.sdj.2016.10.005]
43. Yang X, Lyu C, Zou D. Bifid Mandibular Canals Incidence and Anatomical Variations in the Population of Shanghai Area by Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017 Jul/Aug;41(4):535-40. [DOI:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000561]
44. Allison JR, Carr A. A prevalence study of bifid mandibular canals using cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg 2017;10(4):55-61. [DOI:10.1111/ors.12267]
45. Shen EC, Fu E, Peng M, Hsieh YD, Tu HP, Fu MW. Bifid mandibular canals and their cortex thicknesses: A comparison study on images obtained from cone-beam and multislice computed tomography. J Dent Sci 2016 Jun;11(2):170-4. [DOI:10.1016/j.jds.2016.01.002]
46. Villaça-Carvalho MF, Manhães LR, Jr., de Moraes ME, Lopes SL. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canals by cone beam computed tomography. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016 Sep;20(3):289-94. [DOI:10.1007/s10006-016-0569-y]
47. de Freitas GB, de Freitas e Silva A, Morais LA, Felippe Silva MB, da Silva TCG, Manhães Júnior LRC. Incidence and classification of bifid mandibular canals using cone beam computed tomography. Braz J Oral Sci 2015;14(4):294-8. [DOI:10.1590/1677-3225v14n4a08]
48. Choi Y-Y, Han S-S. Double mandibular foramen leading to the accessory canal on the mandibular ramus. Surg Radiol Anat 2014;36(9):851-5. [DOI:10.1007/s00276-014-1310-x]
49. Shen E-C, Fu E, Ming-Jen Fu M, Peng M. Configuration and corticalization of the mandibular bifid canal in a Taiwanese adult population: a computed tomography study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(4):893-7. [DOI:10.11607/jomi.3435]
50. Kuribayashi A, Watanabe H, Imaizumi A, Tantanapornkul W, Katakami K, Kurabayashi T. Bifid mandibular canals: cone beam computed tomography evaluation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010 May;39(4):235-9. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/66254780]
51. Miličević A, Salarić I, Đanić P, et al. Anatomical Variations of the Bifid Mandibular Canal on Panoramic Radiographs in Citizens from Zagreb, Croatia. Acta Stomatol Croat 2021 Sep;55(3):248-55. [DOI:10.15644/asc55/3/2]
52. Mehdizadeh M, Nateghi N, Vahedian M, Biuki N. Prevalence of Different Types of the Bifid Mandibular Canal and its Relationship with the Position and Width of the Main Canal in the Panoramic Radiographs. Qom Univ Med Sci J 2020;14(7):12-8. [DOI:10.29252/qums.14.7.12]
53. Kalantar Motamedi MH, Navi F, Sarabi N. Bifid mandibular canals: prevalence and implications. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015 Mar;73(3):387-90. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2014.09.011]
54. Kasabah S, Modellel Y. Classification of bifid mandibular canals in the Syrian population using panoramic radiographs. Clin Anat 2014 Jan 9;19 Suppl 3:178-83. [DOI:10.26719/2013.19.Supp3.S178]
55. Lara JS, Quezada AS, Valenzuela JSP, Schilling L, Schilling Q, San Pedro V. Mandibular canal duplication prevalence, digital panoramic radiography analysis. Int J Odontostomatol 2010;4:207-13. [DOI:10.4067/S0718-381X2010000300001]
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
