A retrospective comparison of the location and diameter of the inferior alveolar canal at the mental foramen and length of the anterior loop between American and Taiwanese cohorts using CBCT
- 721 Downloads
The aim was to retrospectively compare the measurements of the location and size of the inferior alveolar canal at the mental foramen and the length of the anterior loop between two cohorts of Americans and Taiwanese using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
CBCT was performed with an I-CAT® Cone-Beam 3D Dental Imaging System and reconstructed into multiple-plane views to measure two populations.
There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.2681) in the distance from the mental foramen to the inferior border of the mandible (mandibular border height) between Americans (9.84 ± 2.01 mm) and Taiwanese (10.13 ± 1.66 mm). No significant difference was found (p = 0.1161) in the inferior alveolar canal diameter between these two cohorts (2.26 ± 0.67 and 2.13 ± 0.47 mm, respectively). However, the anterior loop length of Taiwanese (7.61 ± 1.81 mm) was significantly longer than that of Americans (6.22 ± 1.68 mm) (P < 0.0001).
Our study indicated that (1) the location of mental foramen of Americans was closer to the inferior border of the mandible than Taiwanese; (2) the diameter of the inferior alveolar canal of Americans was larger than Taiwanese; (3) the anterior loop of Taiwanese was longer than Americans. These differences may be, at least partly, due to the racial influence and this information may possess potential valuable clinical relevance.
KeywordsMental foramen Anterior loop Cone-beam computed tomography
Cone-beam computed tomography
Mandibular border height
Inferior alveolar canal diameter
Anterior loop length
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 24.Uchida Y, Yamashita Y, Goto M, Hanihara T (2007) Measurement of anterior loop length for the mandibular canal and diameter of the mandibular incisive canal to avoid nerve damage when installing endosseous implants in the interforaminal region. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:1772–1779PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar