Topographic Association of the Inferior Dental Canal with Different Patterns of Impacted Third Molar Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Cross-Sectional Study

Authors

  • Syed Muhammad Awais
  • Umer Ullah
  • Asmatullah
  • Nida Murad
  • Zainab Shah
  • Muhammad Naeem

Keywords:

Inferior dental canal

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) based evaluation of the intimate relationship between impacted third molar teeth and the Inferior Dental Canal (IDC) before its surgical removal.

METHODOLOGY: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on patients visiting the radiography department at Khyber College of Dentistry between January 2022 and January 2023. The sample size calculated was 200 patients. The age range was 25-45 years. CBCT images were obtained using the Planmeca dental system at 90 kVp. The 3-D generated view was used to determine the Maglione (CBCT-based Inferior Dental Canal (IDC) intimacy 3rd molar), Winter's, and Gregory's classifications for the angulation, location, and space of impacted teeth. The data were analyzed using SPSS 16, with a level of significance of of P? 0.05.

RESULTS: The average age group was 29.6±5 years. The male-to-female ratio was 3:2. Winter classified most impacted teeth as vertically affected. Pell/Gregory classified most of the impaction at position B and Class II for both genders. The P-value was similarly highly significant (p = 0.001) for IDC morphometric measures recorded in both genders. According to the Maglione classification, the fourth pattern (4a, 22%) was the most prevalent on CBCT. The most common radiographic symptom of IDC associated with an impacted third molar tooth was a combination of deflected root and deviated canal.

CONCLUSION: The Maglione Class 4(a) was the most common presentation of impacted third molar with preserved diameter of IDC among both genders.

References

1. Balaji K, Bhardwaj A. A review on extraction of impacted third molars: Indications and complications. J Dent Res Pract. 2020; 6(2): 35-41.

2. Nazir MA. Prevalence and indications for surgical extraction of lower third molars: A retrospective study in a dental hospital in Saudi Arabia. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20: 1-7.

3. Weiss, R.; Read-Fuller, A.M. Cone Beam Computed Tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery: An evidence-based review. Dent J. 2019; 7: 52. doi: 10.3390/dj7020052.

4. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: Recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18: 88-100. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5.

5. Aljarbou FA, Aldosimani MA, Althumairy RI, Alhezam AA, Aldawsari AI. An analysis of the first and second mandibular molar roots' proximity to the inferior alveolar canal and cortical plates using cone beam computed tomography among the Saudi Population. Saudi Med J. 2019;40(2):189-194. doi: 10.15537/smj.2019.2.23602.

6. Synan W, Stein K. Management of impacted third molars. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2020; 32(4): 519-59. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2020.07.002

7. Bui CH, Seldin EB, Dodson TB. Types, frequencies, and risk factors for complications after third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 61: 1379-89.doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2003.04.001.

8. Maglione M, Costantinides F, Bazzocchi G. Classification of impacted mandibular third molars on cone-beam CT images. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015; 7(2): 224-31. doi: 10.4317/jced.51984.

9. Kautto A, Vehkalahti MM, Ventä I. Age of the patient at the extraction of the third molar. Int J Oral Maxfax Surg. 2018; 47(7): 947-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.03.020

10. Jaro? A, Trybek G. The pattern of mandibular third molar impaction and assessment of surgery difficulty: A retrospective study of radiographs in East Baltic Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(11): 23-31. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18116016

11. Srivastava S, Alharbi HM, Alharbi AS, Soliman M, Eldwakhly E, Abdelhafeez MM. Assessment of the proximity of the inferior alveolar canal with the mandibular root apices and cortical plates—A retrospective cone beam computed tomographic analysis. J Pers Med. 2022;12(11):1784. doi: 10.3390/jpm12111784.

12. Nazir M. Postoperative Complications of Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 49(2): 156-172.

13. Choo S, Wey MC, Ngeow WC, Chai WL, Alam MK. The spatial relationship and distances of posterior root apices to various anatomical structures. Int Med J. 2018 Feb 1;25(1):45-50.

14. Cameron CE, Widmer C. Indications for Extraction of Third Molars: A Review of the Literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 49(2): 139-145.

15. Buser D, Règine M. Complications Following Third Molar Surgery: An Overview. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2021; 13(1): 27-35.

16. Harrison JE. Edwards WD. Complications of Third Molars: Prevalence and Risk Factors. J Oral Facial Surg. 2020; 78(5): 735-742.

17. Jiang H. Risk Factors for Complications after Third Molar Extraction: A Meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020; 129(1): 48-56.

Downloads

Published

11-03-2026

How to Cite

1.
Syed Muhammad Awais, Umer Ullah, Asmatullah, Murad N, Shah Z, Naeem M. Topographic Association of the Inferior Dental Canal with Different Patterns of Impacted Third Molar Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Liaq Uni Med Health Sci [Internet]. 2026 Mar. 11 [cited 2026 Mar. 12];25(01):35-9. Available from: http://ojs.lumhs.edu.pk/index.php/jlumhs/article/view/1560

Similar Articles

<< < 1 2 3 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.