Radiological Assessment of the Mandibular Coronoid Process and its Proximity to the Maxillary Third Molar Using CBCT and IOPA
Abstract
Background: The mandibular coronoid process, a prominent bony structure involved in jaw movement and masticatory function, lies in close anatomical proximity to the maxillary third molar. This spatial relationship carries significant clinical implications for surgical planning, particularly in cases involving extraction of the maxillary third molar or surgical procedures performed near the mandibular coronoid process. Understanding the morphological variations of the coronoid process and its positional relationship with adjacent structures is essential for anticipating potential surgical complications and optimizing operative approaches.
Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 108 mandibles using archived Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Intraoral Periapical images. The morphology of the coronoid process was evaluated, and its spatial proximity to the maxillary third molar was assessed. Radiographic data were systematically analyzed to characterize the shape and positional relationships of these anatomical structures.
Results: The most commonly observed shape of the coronoid process was triangular, accounting for 68.1% of the specimens examined, followed by a round shape, which was observed in 31.9% of the cases. The triangular morphology was predominantly noted in both male and female subjects, with frequencies of 67.8% and 68.3%, respectively. This shape was most frequently observed in young individuals, with a prevalence of 70.8% in this demographic group.
Conclusion: Radiological evaluation of the mandibular coronoid process in relation to the maxillary third molar is pivotal for enhancing clinical decision-making and surgical outcomes. Pre-operative assessment of coronoid morphology aids in anticipating potential surgical impingements, identifying anatomical variations that may complicate procedures, and optimizing patient care through more precise surgical planning. The findings underscore the importance of thorough radiographic evaluation prior to interventions involving the maxillary third molar or the mandibular coronoid process region.
References
2. Brown A, Miller T, Davis S. Pathological conditions of the coronoid process and their surgical implications. Int J Oral Surg. 2022;51(4):405-411.
3. Lee K, Chen M, Wang L. Superiority of CBCT over panoramic radiography in evaluating the coronoid-molar relationship. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021;50(6):20200314.
4. Isolan CP, Silva AB, Santos JR. Anatomical variations of the coronoid process and their clinical implications in maxillofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(5):1456-1460.
5. Krogstd O, Larsen M, Jensen P. The effect of temporalis muscle function on mandibular morphology. Eur J Orthod. 2018;40(3):289-295.
6. Hernandez MA, Silva R. Cone-beam computed tomography assessment of the impacted maxillary third molar. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2019;9(1):24-29.
7. Gupta A, Sharma R, Kumar V. Age and gender estimation utilizing mandibular parameters: A radiographic study. Forensic Sci Int. 2021;320:110685.
8. Patel N, Mehta F. Surgical morbidity associated with upper third molar extractions: A retrospective review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;80(1):45-52.
9. Takahashi T, Tanaka Y, Suzuki H. Spatial analysis of the temporomandibular joint and adjacent bony structures. Cranio. 2017;35(4):211-218.
10. Williams R. Imaging resolution in modern dental radiography: Limitations and future directions. Dent Clin North Am. 2020;64(1):153-168.
11. Johnson E, Brown M, Taylor S. The biomechanics of mastication and its influence on skeletal architecture. J Biomech. 2019;85:12-19.
12. Davies SJ. Impingement of the coronoid process during maxillary surgeries. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;59(7):820-825.
13. Anderson L, Wright P. Anthropometric measurements of the mandible using 3D imaging. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2018;301(2):290-297.
14. Gonzalez C, Martinez Y, Rodriguez L. IOPA vs CBCT: Diagnostic accuracy in oral and maxillofacial regions. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(3):1123-1131.
15. Martinez Y, Garcia A, Lopez M. Dietary impacts on craniofacial growth and development. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2020;171(4):605-615.
16. Kim YH, Park SJ, Lee JH. Longitudinal changes in mandibular shape during late adolescence. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(5):750-756.
17. Peterson LJ, Ellis E, Hupp JR. Contemporary Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 7th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2021.
18. Rahman S, Ahmed K, Khan M. Identifying high-risk anatomical variants prior to third molar surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2022;133(2):145-151.
19. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. 8th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2018.
20. Chang J, Wu M, Lin Y. Evaluating structural bone density of the coronoid process via CBCT. Radiol Res Pract. 2020;2020:8471592.
21. Okeson JP. Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion. 8th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2019.
22. Nguyen T, Tran H, Le V. Correlation between facial morphology and impacted third molars. J Dent Res. 2021;100(8):840-846.
23. Singh V, Kumar A, Gupta S. Applications of SPSS in dental research: A methodological review. J Dent Educ. 2023;87(1):55-63.
24. Taylor M, Clark D, Adams R. Minimizing complications in maxillofacial surgery through advanced imaging. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;40(1):15.
25. Roberts WE, Goodacre CJ, Brown CE. Bone physiology and metabolism in dental implantology and reconstructive surgery. Implant Dent. 2020;29(4):301-310.
