Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-02-14, 12:02:22 | version 1.38.0
P r o x i m i t y o f m a n d i b u l a r f i r s t a n d s e c o n d m o l a r s t o I A C A g r e e m e n t s a n d d i s a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n s t u d i e s i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e v i e w Conclusion Adigüzel et al. and Simonton et al. used a similar methodology in determining the distance between the apices of mandibular first and second molars and the IAC.8, 9 These two studies used sagittal scans and intervariability tests and considered various factors that influence IAC location with respect to first and second molars. Bürklein et al. stated the inclusion and exclusion criteria.7 The above-mentioned studies lack a scientific approach in determining the distance and hence, this might be a source of potential bias. Chong et al. tried to follow the principle of the Pythagoras theorem to determine the dis- tance, which is the scientific method of deter- mining the distance between two points.2 The investigators should have considered an inter- observer reliability between two dental radiolo- gists. The study should also have considered sex and age as factors in determining the distance. We can conclude that the average mean distance between the IAC and the apices of mandibular molars is approximately 7.3 mm. In addition to this, certain factors, such as age, sex, race, posi- tion of tooth and bone thickness, play a key role in determining the distance between the IAC and the apex. The values found are mean values and the clinical decision should be made on a case- by- case basis and the type of imaging modality used. There is significant application of CBCT in clinical outcome while treatment planning in the first and second mandibular molar region. Acknowledgment We would like to thank Drs. Namitha Thomas, Natasha Shetty and Neethu for their initial parti- cipation in the review. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the materials used in the present study. No funding was given to conduct this review. 1. Kawashima Y, Sakai O, Shosho D, Kaneda T, Gohel A. Proximity of the mandibular canal to teeth and cortical bone. → J Endod. 2016 Feb 29;42(2):221–4. 2. Chong BS, Quinn A, Pawar RR, Makdissi J, Sidhu SK. The anatomical relationship between the roots of mandibular second molars and the inferior alveolar nerve. → Int Endod J. 2015 Jun; 48(6):549–55. 3. Burstein J, Mastin C, Le B. Avoiding injury to the inferior alveolar nerve by routine use of intraoperative radiographs during implant placement. → J Oral Implantol. 2008 Feb;34(1):34–8. 4. Renton T. Prevention of iatrogenic inferior alveolar nerve injuries in relation to dental procedures. → Dental Update. 2010 Jul–Aug;37(6):350–2, 354–6, 358–60 passim. References 5. Escoda-Francoli J, Canalda-Sahli C, Soler A, Figueiredo R, Gay-Escoda C. Inferior alveolar nerve damage because of overextended endodontic material: a problem of sealer cement biocompati- bility? → J Endod. 2007 Dec;33(12):1484–9. 6. Hiremath H, Agarwal R, Hiremath V, Phulambrikar T. Evaluation of proximity of mandibular molars and second premolar to inferior alveolar nerve canal among central Indians: a cone-beam computed tomographic retrospective study. → Indian J Dent Res. 2016 May–Jun;27(3):312–6. 7. Bürklein S, Grund C, Schäfer E. Relation ship between root apices and the mandibular canal: a cone-beam computed tomographic analysis in a German population. → J Endod. 2015 Oct;41(10):1696–700. 8. Adigüzel Ö, Yiğit-Özer S, Kaya S, Akkuş Z. Patient-specific factors in the proximity of the inferior alveolar nerve to the tooth apex. → Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 Nov 1;17(6):e1103–8. 9. Simonton JD, Azevedo B, Schindler WG, Hargreaves KM. Age- and gender-related differences in the position of the inferior alveolar nerve by using cone beam computed tomography. → J Endod. 2009 Jul;35(7):944–9. 10. Tilotta-Yasukawa F, Millot S, El Haddioui A, Bravetti P, Gaudy JF. Labiomandibular paresthesia caused by endodontic treatment: an anatomic and clinical study. → Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 Oct;102(4):e47–59. 11. Littner MM, Kaffe I, Tamse A, Dicapua P. Relationship between the apices of the lower molars and mandibular canal— a radiographic study. → Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1986 Nov;62(5):595–602. 12. Levine MH, Goddard AL, Dodson TB. Inferior alveolar nerve canal position: a clinical and radiographic study. → J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Mar;65(3):470–4. 13. Chrcanovic BR, de Carvalho Machado V, Gjelvold B. Immediate implant placement in the posterior mandible: a cone beam computed tomography study. → Quintessence Int. 2016 May;47(6):505–14. 14. Al-Jandan BA, Al-Sulaiman AA, Marei HF, Syed FA, Almana M. Thickness of buccal bone in the mandible and its clinical significance in mono-cortical screws placement. A CBCT analysis. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jan;42(1):77–81. 15. Alves FR, Coutinho MS, Gonçalves LS. Endodontic-related facial paresthesia: systematic review. → J Can Dent Assoc. 2014;80:e13. 16. Sharma U, Narain S. Unusual facial pain secondary to inferior alveolar nerve compression caused by impacted mandibular second molar. → J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2014 Apr–Jun;32(2):164–7. 17. Umar G, Bryant C, Obisesan O, Rood JP. Correlation of the radiological predictive factors of inferior alveolar nerve injury with cone beam computed tomography findings. → Oral Surgery. 2010 Aug;3(3):72–82. 56 Volume 3 | Issue 4/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation