We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 1     1. Feb. 2013
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 1  (01.02.2013)

Page 117-124, doi:10.11607/jomi.2372, PubMed:23377056

The Dimensions of the Mandibular Incisive Canal and Its Spatial Relationship to Various Anatomical Landmarks of the Mandible: A Study Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography
Apostolakis, Dimitrios / Brown, Jackie E.
Purpose: Often during implant surgery in the mandibular symphysis area, little attention is given to the mandibular incisive canal. Although it is true that intraoperative and postoperative complications with implants in the incisive mandibular canal are rare, they are more common when harvesting bone from the chin area. Loss of tooth sensation is a rather frequent consequence. The present study used cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to identify and measure variations in the dimensions of the incisive canal and its spatial relationship to various anatomical landmarks of the mandible to reduce the number of postoperative complications after selective procedures in the symphysis area.
Materials and Methods: One hundred two patients scanned for a variety of clinical indications were included in this retrospective study. The dimensions of the incisive mandibular canal were assessed, and the distances from the various mandibular landmarks were measured using the multiplanar capabilities of the CBCT device's software.
Results: The results show that a mandibular incisive canal was identified by CBCT in 93% of the cases and had a mean length of 8.9 mm (range, 0 to 24.6 mm). The mean distances of the canal from the root tips of the premolars, canines, and incisors were 6.9 mm, 7.3 mm, and 10.4 mm, respectively. The mean distances from the canal to the buccal cortical border in the same tooth positions were 2.8 mm, 4.4 mm, and 4.8 mm, respectively.
Conclusions: In a large majority of the sample, a mandibular incisive canal was identified by CBCT. The large variation in the spatial relationships of the canal mandates a case-by-case preoperative radiographic evaluation of the canal, and CBCT seems able to fulfill the task.

Keywords: cone beam computed tomography, dental implants, incisive canal, incisive nerve