Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

MANDİBULAR 3. MOLAR DİŞLERİN LİNGUAL KORTİKAL KEMİK İLE OLAN İLİŞKİSİNİN KIBT İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 4, 178 - 183, 15.06.2023
https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1229461

Abstract

Amaç: Tedavi veya profilaktik amaçlı çekimine karar verilen mandibular üçüncü molar dişlerin çekimi esnasında ve sonrasında karşılaşılabilecek komplikasyonları öngörmek amacıyla mandibular üçüncü molar dişlerin lingual kortikal kemik ile olan ilişkisinin Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi (KIBT) ile değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: İncelenen mandibular 3. Molar dişlerin pozisyonları: mesioangular, vertikal, horizontal ve distoangular olmak üzere dört gruba ayrıldı. Dişlerin kuron ve kök bölgesinden mandibular lingual kemiğe en yakın noktalarıyla mandibular lingual kemik arasındaki mesafeleri ölçüldü.

Bulgular: Mandibular kortikal kemikle mandibular üçüncü molar dişlerin arasında mesafe olmadığı perforasyon durumu kadınlarda kuron bölgesinde % 22.5, erkeklerde % 26.8 iken tüm hastalarda 24.4% olarak bulundu. Kadınlarda kök perforasyonu görülme sıklığı % 28.2, erkeklerde % 33.9 iken tüm hastalarda % 30.7 olarak bulundu. Sırasıyla en sık kuron bölgesi perforasyonu izlenen pozisyonlar horizontal>mezioangular>distoangular>vertikal iken en sık kök bölgesi perforasyonu izlenen pozisyonlar ise horizontal>mezioangular>vertikal> distoangular olarak tespit edildi. Mandibular lingual kemik kalınlığı ortalama kuron bölgesinde 0,85mm, kök bölgesinde ise 0,76 mm olarak ölçüldü.

Sonuçlar: Bu çalışmada perforasyonun en fazla görüldüğü mandibular üçüncü molar pozisyonu kuron ve kök bölgelerinin her ikisinde de horizontal pozisyon olarak tespit edildi. 2 boyutlu radyografilerde değerlendirilmesi mümkün olmayan mandibular lingual kortikal kemik kalınlığı ve ilgili bölgedeki perforasyon alanları preoperatif olarak KIBT ile değerlendirilmelidir.

References

  • 1. Meral G, The Surgical Removal of Third Molars: Patient Profile and Preoperative Parameters, Hacettepe Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2005;29(4):56-61.
  • 2. Özkan, G. & Demetoğlu, U. Evaluation of Lingual Cortical Bone Thickness of the Mandibular Third Molars Using CBCT. Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2020;41(2):143-147.
  • 3. Wang D, He X. Topographic relationship between root apex of mesially and horizontally impacted mandibular third molar and lingual plate: crosssectional analysis using CBCT, Scientific Reports 2016.
  • 4. Lınden Van Der W, Cleaton-Jones P, Lownıe M . Diseases and lesions associated with third molars. Review of 1001 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995;79:142-145.
  • 5. Mercıer P, Precıous D. Risks and benefits of removal of impacted third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992;21:17-27.
  • 6. Lopes V, Mumenya R, Feinmann C, Harris M. Third molar surgery: An audit of the indications for surgery, postoperative complaints and patient satisfaction. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;33:33-35.
  • 7. Korkmaz YT, Kayıpmaz S, Senel FC, Atasoy KT, Gumrukcu Z. Does additional cone beam computedtomography decrease the risk of inferior alveolarnerve injury in high-risk cases undergoing thirdmolar surgery? Does CBCT decrease the risk of IAN injury? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46:628-635.
  • 8. Hasani A, Ahmadi Moshtaghin F, Roohi P, RakhshanV.Diagnostic value of cone beam computedtomography and panoramic radiography inpredicting mandibular nerve exposure during thirdmolar surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46:230-235
  • 9. Emes Y, Oncu B, Aybar B, et al. Measurement of theLingual Position of the Lower Third Molar RootsUsing Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73:13-17.
  • 10. Tolstunov L, Brickeen M, Kamanin V, Susarla SM,Selvi F. Is the angulation of mandibular third molarsassociated with the thickness of lingual bone? Br JOral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54: 914-919.
  • 11. Ge J, Zheng JW, Yang C, Qian WT. Variations in thebuccal-lingual alveolar bone thickness of impactedmandibular third molar: our classification and treatment perspectives. Sci Rep 2016; 6:16375.
  • 12. Menziletoglu D, Tassoker M, Işık K, Esen A. The assesment of relationship between the angulation of impacted mandibular third molar teethand the thickness of lingual bone: A prospectiveclinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019;24:130-135.
  • 13. Wihokrut, S, Vorakulpipat, C, Manosuthi, P, & Waikakul, A. Proximity of mandibular third molar root (s) to surrounding cortical bone: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic findings. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2022;26(2):311-319.
Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 4, 178 - 183, 15.06.2023
https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1229461

Abstract

References

  • 1. Meral G, The Surgical Removal of Third Molars: Patient Profile and Preoperative Parameters, Hacettepe Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2005;29(4):56-61.
  • 2. Özkan, G. & Demetoğlu, U. Evaluation of Lingual Cortical Bone Thickness of the Mandibular Third Molars Using CBCT. Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2020;41(2):143-147.
  • 3. Wang D, He X. Topographic relationship between root apex of mesially and horizontally impacted mandibular third molar and lingual plate: crosssectional analysis using CBCT, Scientific Reports 2016.
  • 4. Lınden Van Der W, Cleaton-Jones P, Lownıe M . Diseases and lesions associated with third molars. Review of 1001 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995;79:142-145.
  • 5. Mercıer P, Precıous D. Risks and benefits of removal of impacted third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992;21:17-27.
  • 6. Lopes V, Mumenya R, Feinmann C, Harris M. Third molar surgery: An audit of the indications for surgery, postoperative complaints and patient satisfaction. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;33:33-35.
  • 7. Korkmaz YT, Kayıpmaz S, Senel FC, Atasoy KT, Gumrukcu Z. Does additional cone beam computedtomography decrease the risk of inferior alveolarnerve injury in high-risk cases undergoing thirdmolar surgery? Does CBCT decrease the risk of IAN injury? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46:628-635.
  • 8. Hasani A, Ahmadi Moshtaghin F, Roohi P, RakhshanV.Diagnostic value of cone beam computedtomography and panoramic radiography inpredicting mandibular nerve exposure during thirdmolar surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46:230-235
  • 9. Emes Y, Oncu B, Aybar B, et al. Measurement of theLingual Position of the Lower Third Molar RootsUsing Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73:13-17.
  • 10. Tolstunov L, Brickeen M, Kamanin V, Susarla SM,Selvi F. Is the angulation of mandibular third molarsassociated with the thickness of lingual bone? Br JOral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54: 914-919.
  • 11. Ge J, Zheng JW, Yang C, Qian WT. Variations in thebuccal-lingual alveolar bone thickness of impactedmandibular third molar: our classification and treatment perspectives. Sci Rep 2016; 6:16375.
  • 12. Menziletoglu D, Tassoker M, Işık K, Esen A. The assesment of relationship between the angulation of impacted mandibular third molar teethand the thickness of lingual bone: A prospectiveclinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019;24:130-135.
  • 13. Wihokrut, S, Vorakulpipat, C, Manosuthi, P, & Waikakul, A. Proximity of mandibular third molar root (s) to surrounding cortical bone: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic findings. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2022;26(2):311-319.
There are 13 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Dentistry
Journal Section Research
Authors

Didem Dumanlı 0000-0001-7409-8096

Gediz Geduk 0000-0002-9650-2149

Çiğdem Şeker 0000-0001-8984-1241

Publication Date June 15, 2023
Submission Date January 13, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 10 Issue: 4

Cite

Vancouver Dumanlı D, Geduk G, Şeker Ç. MANDİBULAR 3. MOLAR DİŞLERİN LİNGUAL KORTİKAL KEMİK İLE OLAN İLİŞKİSİNİN KIBT İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Selcuk Dent J. 2023;10(4):178-83.