Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2012
Supramandibular canal portion superior to the fossa of the submaxillary gland: a tomographic evaluation of the cross-sectional dimension in the molar region.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yu David C, Friedland Bernard D, Karimbux Nadeem Y, Guze Kevin A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Within the fossa of the submaxillary gland (FSG), there is a portion superior to the mandibular canal (SMCP) that can affect implant placement. Our study evaluated this specific portion's prevalence and its average dimensional difference between the first and the second molar regions in a dental implant population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 112 patients' mandibular cone beam computerized tomography scans, the SMCPs of the FSG's horizontal and vertical dimensions in the first and second molar positions on both sides were digitally measured.
RESULTS: The SMCP of the FSG is larger in the second molar region than in the first molar region in >90% of cases. Average differences were 2.3 mm horizontally and 2.7 mm vertically. Gender difference and intraindividual's left/right variation were both clinically less significant in magnitude than the difference between the molar regions. Taking the 2-mm safety margin above the mandibular canal into consideration, the SMCP of the FSG remained high in prevalence.
CONCLUSIONS: The SMCP of the FSG may complicate implant placement more in the second molar region than in the first. Implant planning in the posterior mandibular molar regions should include a SMCP of the FSG evaluation using computer tomography especially in the second molar region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 112 patients' mandibular cone beam computerized tomography scans, the SMCPs of the FSG's horizontal and vertical dimensions in the first and second molar positions on both sides were digitally measured.
RESULTS: The SMCP of the FSG is larger in the second molar region than in the first molar region in >90% of cases. Average differences were 2.3 mm horizontally and 2.7 mm vertically. Gender difference and intraindividual's left/right variation were both clinically less significant in magnitude than the difference between the molar regions. Taking the 2-mm safety margin above the mandibular canal into consideration, the SMCP of the FSG remained high in prevalence.
CONCLUSIONS: The SMCP of the FSG may complicate implant placement more in the second molar region than in the first. Implant planning in the posterior mandibular molar regions should include a SMCP of the FSG evaluation using computer tomography especially in the second molar region.