Sechenov Medical Journal

Advanced search

Radiographic and anatomic investigation on the prevalence of bifid mandibular canals in cone beam computed tomography scans 10.47093/2218-7332_2018.3.54-58

Full Text:


Background. Knowing the radiologic anatomy of the mandibular canal is essential to perform optimal anesthetic techniques in dentistry, especially in endodontic and surgical procedures. Bifid mandibular canals figure as anatomic variations that may hamper dental anesthesia and lead to surgical accidents.Objective. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of bifid mandibular canals in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of patients under dental treatment.Material and methods. The sample consisted of 700 patients (448 females and 252 males) under dental treatment. CBCT images taken from each patient for dental treatment purposes were analyzed retrospectively in order to search for bifid mandibular canals. The detected bifid mandibular canals were classified according to their morphological arrangement and the prevalence of this anatomic variation was tested for association with patients’ sex using Pearson’s Chi-square test (2).Results. The prevalence rate of bifid mandibular canals reached 2% (n=14). Mandibular canals with an additional bifurcation towards the anterior region of the mandibular ramus were the most prevalent (100%). Lack of statistical association was observed between the occurrence of bifid mandibular canals and patients’ sex ( p >0.05).Conclusion. Despite uncommon, bifid mandibular canals may occur. Dentists must be aware of this anatomic variation to perform safely and optimally in the clinical routine.

About the Authors

C. Casagrande
Federal University of Paraná
Russian Federation

S. G. Orestes
Federal University of Paraná
Russian Federation

A. D. Schroder
School of Health Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná
Russian Federation

A. A. De-Lima
Federal University of Paraná
Russian Federation

A. Franco
Institute of Dentistry, Sechenov University
Russian Federation

I. Makeeva
Institute of Dentistry, Sechenov University
Russian Federation

Â. Fernandes
Federal University of Paraná
Russian Federation


1. Vieira W.A, Paranhos L.R, Cericato G.O et al. Is mepivacaine as effective as lidocaine during inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis? A systematic review and meta - analysis. Int Endod J 2018 [ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12926

2. Pasquali J.G, Narazaki N.D, Franco A et al. Assessing the radiographic position of the mental forament in a Braizlian population. J Dent Indonesia 2017; 4 (1): 19-22.

3. Pereira P.N, Fernandes A, Gugisch R.C et al. Radiographic assessment of the mandibular foramen in children: focus on anesthetic procedures. Arch Oral Res 2013; 9 (3): 279-83.

4. Malamed S. Handbook of local anesthesia. 6th ed. St Louis: Elsevier 2013.

5. Khalil H. A basic review on the inferior alveolar nerve block techniques. Anesth Essays Res 2014; 8 (1): 3-8.

6. Alhassani A.A, Al Ghamdi A.S.T. Inferior alveolar nerve injury in implant deitstry: diagnosis, causes, prevention and management. J Oral Implantol 2010; 36 (5): 401-7.

7. Carter R.B, Keen E.N. The intramandibular course of the inferior alveolar nerve. J Anat 1971; 108 (3): 433-40.

8. Matzen L.H, Wenzel A. Efficacy of CBCT for assessment of impacted mandibular third molars: a review - based on a hierarchical model of evidence. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44 (1): 20140189.

9. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M et al. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18: 88.

10. Miclotte A, Franco A, Guerrero M.A et al. The association between orthodontic treatment and third molar position, inferior alveolar nerve involvement, and prediction of wisdom tooth eruption. Surg Radiol Anat 2015; 37 (4): 333-9.

11. Joudzbalys G, Wang H.L, Sabalys G et al. Inferior alveolar nerve injury associated with implant surgery. Clin Oral Implant Res 2013; 24: 183-90.

12. Oliveira-Santos C, Capelozza A.L.A, Dezzoti M.S.G et al. Visibility of the mandibular canal on CBCT cross - sectional images. J App Oral Sci 2011; 19 (3): 240-3.

13. Wolf K.T, Brokaw E.J, Bell A, Joy A. Variant inferior alveolar nerves and implications for local anesthesia. Anesth Prog 2016; 63 (2): 84-90.

14. Langlais R.P, Broadus R, Glass B.J. Bifid mandibular canals in panoramic radiographs. J Am Dent Assoc 1985; 110 (6): 923-6.

15. Yu S.K, Lee M.H, Jeon Y.H et al. Anatomical configuration of the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle: a histomorphometric analysis. Surg Radiol Anat 2016; 38 (2): 195-201.

16. Kuczynski A, Kucharski W, Franco A et al. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canals in panoramic radiographs. Surg Radiol Anat 2014; 36 (9): 847-50.

17. Bogdán S, Pataky L, Barabás J et al. Atypical courses of the mandibular canal: comparative examination of dry mandibles and x - rays. J Craniofac Surg 2006; 17 (3): 487-91.

18. Naitoh M, Nakahara K, Suenaga Y et al. Comparison between cone - beam and multi - slice computed tomography depicting mandibular neurovascular canal structures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109 (1): e25-31.

19. Andrade Y.D.N, Araujo E.B.J, Souza L.M.A, Groppo F.C. Analysis of anatomical variations of the mandibular canal found on panoramic radiographs. Rev Odontol Unesp 2015; 44 (1): 31-6.

20. Kuribayashi A, Watanabe H, Imaizumi A et al. Bifid mandibular canals: cone beam computed tomography evaluation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39 (4): 235-9.


Views: 270

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2218-7332 (Print)
ISSN 2658-3348 (Online)