Anthropomorphic assessment of the retromolar foramen and retromolar nerve: anomaly or variation of normal anatomy?

The retromolar foramen, retromolar canal, and retromolar nerve constitute a variation of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) with a prevalence of 12-75%; this represents type 1 bifidity of the IAN. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of the retromolar nerve in our population and to obtain related data. One hundred and thirty-six mandibles of fresh cadavers aged 20-75 years were dissected. The buccolingual location, diameter, and distance from the third molar, and their associations with sex, were measured. The area of innervation and demographic data were also documented and analysed statistically. The retromolar foramen and retromolar nerve were observed in 55 cases (40.4%). The mean diameter of the retromolar foramen was 1.7 mm (range 1.1-2.1 mm); the mean diameter was 1.8 mm in males and 1.5mm in females. Histological findings showed that the retromolar nerve extended from the anterior border of the ramus, innervating the retromolar pad and continuing to the buccal gingiva of up to two teeth anteriorly (first molar region). This high percentage of IAN type 1 bifidity (40.4%) suggests it to be a normal anatomical variation of the IAN rather than an anomaly.

Compliance of Iranian dentists with safety standards of oral radiology.

OBJECTIVES: Dentists use radiographs in their daily practice. Their knowledge and behaviour towards radiographic examination can affect patients' exposure to radiation. The aim of this study was to survey the knowledge and behaviour of Iranian dentists regarding oral radiology safety standards. METHODS: 1000 questionnaires were given to the participants of the 48th Annual Congress of the Iranian Dental Association, of which 700 were returned. The participants were asked about demographic data, primary knowledge of radiation protection, selection criteria, radiographic equipment and technique, methods of patient and personnel protection and management of radiographic waste. Descriptive analysis of data was performed. RESULTS: 44% of respondents said the initial radiograph they took was of the periapical view of a limited area. 12% preferred the periapical paralleling technique. F-speed film was used by 9% and E-speed film by 62%. Only 2% had digital receptors. Proper exposure time was selected by 26.5%. The use of long and rectangular collimators was 15% and 6%, respectively. 34% occasionally covered their patients with both thyroid shields and lead aprons. 36% used the position and distance rule correctly for their own protection. Proper disposal of the used processing solutions and the lead foils were done by only 1% and 3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the majority of dentists in the study group did not select the proper method, material and equipment in order to minimize the exposure of their patient to unnecessary radiation in dental radiography.