A retrospective radiographic evaluation of the anterior loop of the mental nerve: comparison between panoramic radiography and cone beam computerized tomography

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence and the length of mental loop, measured with panoramic radiography (PR)and cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT).MATERIAL AND METHODS: PG and CBCT images where analyzed by a single calibrated examiner to determine the presence and the position of the mental foramen (MF), its distance to the lower mandible border, the anterior length of the mental loop (ML) and the bone quality in 82 PR and 82 CBCT. RESULTS: ML was identified in 36.6 % of PR and 48.8 % of CBCT. PR showed a magnification of 1.87 when compared to CBCT. The mean of anterior extension of the inferior alveolar nerve and the distance to the inferior border of the mandible was higher for PR (2.8 mm, sd 0.91 mm on the PR , range 1.5 to 4.7 mm and 1.59, sd 0.9 on the CBCT ,range 0.4 to 4.0 mm)CONCLUSIONS: There is a magnification in PR images with respect to those of CBCT. The differences between CBCT and PR with regards to the identification and length of the ML are not statistically significant. Identification and accuracy measurements of ML did not depend on the bone quality. Considering that two dimensional imaging provides less accurate and reliable information regarding the anterior loop, a CBCT scan could be recommended when planning implant placement in the anterior region

A retrospective radiographic evaluation of the anterior loop of the mental nerve: comparison between panoramic radiography and cone beam computerized tomography.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence and the length of mental loop, measured with panoramic radiography (PR) and cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: PG and CBCT images where analyzed by a single calibrated examiner to determine the presence and the position of the mental foramen (MF), its distance to the lower mandible border, the anterior length of the mental loop (ML) and the bone quality in 82 PR and 82 CBCT. RESULTS: ML was identified in 36.6 % of PR and 48.8 % of CBCT. PR showed a magnification of 1.87 when compared to CBCT. The mean of anterior extension of the inferior alveolar nerve and the distance to the inferior border of the mandible was higher for PR (2.8 mm, sd 0.91 mm on the PR , range 1.5 to 4.7 mm and 1.59, sd 0.9 on the CBCT ,range 0.4 to 4.0 mm) CONCLUSIONS: There is a magnification in PR images with respect to those of CBCT. The differences between CBCT and PR with regards to the identification and length of the ML are not statistically significant. Identification and accuracy measurements of ML did not depend on the bone quality. Considering that two dimensional imaging provides less accurate and reliable information regarding the anterior loop, a CBCT scan could be recommended when planning implant placement in the anterior region.