以下颌神经管为参照的下颌阻生第三磨牙的分类及临床意义

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：以下颌神经管为参照,探讨与下颌神经管(inferior alveolar canal,IAC)相交的下颌阻生第三磨牙(impacted mandibular third molars,IMTMs)的阻生类型,并观察手术拔除阻生牙后下牙槽神经损伤与阻生类型间的关系。方法：对锥形束CT(cone beam computed tomography,CBCT)确诊为下颌阻生第三磨牙与下颌神经管接触或相交的378例患者共658侧阻生牙,以下颌神经管为参照,将阻生牙分为4类：Ⅰ类位于神经管的上方,Ⅱ类位于神经管的颊侧,Ⅲ类位于神经管的舌侧,Ⅳ类下颌神经管位于牙根之间。所有病例均采用手术拔除,术后观察容易引起下牙槽神经损伤的阻生类型,统计各种类型神经损伤的例数,应用SPSS13.0软件包对数据进行χ²检验。结果：阻生牙拔除后,下牙槽神经损伤率为6.8%(45/658)。其中,第Ⅰ类15例(15/332)发生下唇麻木、第Ⅱ类19例 (19/108) 发生下唇麻木、第Ⅲ类11例(11/210)发生下唇麻木,第IV类未发生下唇麻木(0/8)。统计学分析显示,阻生牙拔除后,第Ⅰ类和第Ⅱ类、第Ⅱ类和第Ⅲ类下牙槽神经损伤率有显著差异(P<0.01),第Ⅰ类和第Ⅲ类之间无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论：以下颌神经管为参照,CBCT冠状位可将下颌阻生第三磨牙与下颌神经管相交的患者分为4类,手术拔除过程中均有损伤下牙槽神经的危险,尤其是位于下颌神经管颊侧的阻生牙。

关键词: 阻生牙, 下颌神经管, 锥形束CT

Abstract: PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to access the position of third mandibular molar in relationship to the inferior alveolar nerve(IAN) injury during surgical extraction. METHODS: Six hundred and fifty-eight cases were diagnosed with impacted mandibular third molars(ITIMs) which were intersected with the inferior alveolar canal(IAC) by cone beam computed tomography(CBCT), they were classified using the IAC as a reference, the relationship of tooth root and IAC was divided into four types: ① The root was located above the IAC (type 1); ②The root was located on the buccal side (type 2); ③The root was located on the lingual side (type 3); ④ IAC was located between the roots (type 4). In all cases, the teeth were surgically extracted, and postoperative observations were performed to determine the category which was more likely to cause IAN damage. The data was analyzed with SPSS13.0 sofeware package for chi-square test. RESULTS: The overall rate of neurosensory impairment following extraction was 6.8%(45/658). It occurred in 15 patients whose root was located above the IAC (15/332), in 19 patients whose root was located on the buccal side of the IAC (19/108), and in 11 patients whose root was located on the lingual side (11/210). No neurosensory impairment was found in the group where the IAC was located between the roots (0/8). Statistical analysis showed there was significant difference between type 1 and type 2, and type 2 and type 3 (χ²test, P<0.01); and there was no significant difference between the first group and the third group (χ²test, P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between the IMTM and the IAC was divided into four categories using the IAC as a reference. Risk of IAN damage exists for patients during surgical extractions of IMTM that are intersected with the IAC, especially for those with impacted teeth that are located on the buccal side of the IAC.

Key words: Impacted mandibular third molars, Inferior alveolar canal, CBCT

中图分类号:

R782.1

徐光宙, 杨驰, 范新东, 俞创奇, 汪湧, 张瑛. 以下颌神经管为参照的下颌阻生第三磨牙的分类及临床意义[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2014, 12(2): 131-135.

XU Guang-zhou, YANG Chi, FAN Xin-dong, YU Chuang-qi, WANG Yong, ZHANG Ying. Classification of the impacted mandibular third molar using the mandibular canal as a reference and its clinical significance[J]. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014, 12(2): 131-135.

参考文献

[1] Haug RH, Perrott DH, Gonzalez ML, et al. The American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons age-related third molar study [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2005, 63(8): 1106-1114.
[2] Gelesko S, Blakey GH, Partrick M, et al. Comparison of periodontal inflammatory disease in young adults with and without pericoronitis involving mandibular third molars [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009, 67(1): 134-139.
[3] Blondeau F, Daniel NG. Extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: postoperative complications and their risk factors [J]. J Can Dent Assoc, 2007, 73(4): 325.
[4] Rood JP. Permanent damage to inferior alveolar and lingual nerves during the removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Comparison of two methods of bone removal [J]. Br dent J, 1992, 172(3): 108-110.
[5] Sisk AL, Hammer WB, Shelton DW, et al. Complications following removal of impacted third molars: the role of the experience of the surgeon[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg,1986, 44(11): 855-859.
[6] Blaeser BF, August MA, Donoff RB, et al. Panoramic radiographic risk factors for inferior alveolar nerve injury after third molar extraction [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2003, 61(4): 417-421.
[7] Wofford DT, Miller RI. Prospective study of dysesthesia following odontectomy of impacted mandibular third molars [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1987, 45(1): 15-19.
[8] Nakagawa Y, Ishii H, Nomura Y, et al. Third molar position: reliability of panoramic radiography [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007, 65(7): 1303-1308.
[9] Valmaseda-Castell&#x0dbc0;&#x0dda9;n E, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Inferior alveolar nerve damage after lower third molar surgical extraction: a prospective study of 1117 surgical extractions [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2001, 92(4): 377-383.
[10] Jerjes W, Swinson B, Moles DR, et al. Permanent sensory nerve impairment following third molar surgery: a prospective study [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod,2006,102(4): e1-7
[11] Palma-Carri&#x0dbc0;&#x0dda9; C, García-Mira B, Larrazabal-Mor&#x0dbc0;&#x0dda9;n C, et al. Radiographic signs associated with inferior alveolar nerve damage following lower third molar extraction [J]. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2010, 15(6): e886-890.
[12] Brann CR, Brickley MR, Shepherd JP. Factors influencing nerve damage during lower third molar surgery [J]. Br Dent J, 1999, 186(10): 514-516.
[13] Nakayama K, Nonoyama M, Takaki Y, et al. Assessment of the relationship between impacted mandibular third molars and inferior alveolar nerve with dental 3-dimensional computed tomography [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009, 67(12): 2587-2591.
[14] Rood JP. Degrees of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve sustained during the removal of impacted mandibular third molars by the lingual split technique [J]. Br J Oral Surg,1983, 21(2):103-116.
[15] Sedaghatfar M, August MA, Dodson TB. Panoramic radiographic findings as predictors of inferior alveolar nerve exposure following third molar extraction [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg,2005,63(1): 3-7.
[16] Szalma J, Lempel E, Jeges S. The prognostic value of panoramic radiography of inferior alveolar nerve damage after mandibular third molar removal: retrospective study of 400 cases [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2010, 109(2): 294-302.
[17] Ylikontiola L, Moberg K, Huumonen S, et al. Comparison of three radiographic methods used to locate the mandibular canal in the buccolingual direction before bilateral sagittal split osteotomy [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2002, 93(6): 736-742.
[18] Ohman A, Kivijärvi K, Blombäck U, et al. Pre-operative radiographic evaluation of lower third molars with computed tomography [J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2006, 35(1): 30-35.
[19] Friedland B, Donoff B, Dodson TB. The use of 3-dimensional reconstructions to evaluate the anatomic relationship of the mandibular canal and impacted mandibular third molars [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2008, 66(8): 1678-1685.
[20] Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, et al. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT [J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2006, 35(4): 219-226.
[21] Araki K, Maki K, Seki K, et al. Characteristics of a newly developed dentomaxillofacial X-ray cone beam CT scanner (CB MercuRay): system configuration and physical properties [J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2004, 33(1): 51-59.
[22] Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S, et al. Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2007, 36(8): 465-471.
[23] Maegawa H, Sano K, Kitagawa Y, et al. Preoperative assessment of the relationship between the mandibular third molar and the mandibular canal by axial computed tomography with coronal and sagittal reconstruction [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2003, 96(5): 639-646.
[24] Ghaeminia H, Meijer GJ, Soehardi A, et al. Position of the impacted third molar in relation to the mandibular canal. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography compared with panoramic radiography [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009, 38(9): 964-971.
[25] Ueda M, Nakamori K, Shiratori K, et al. Clinical significance of computed tomographic assessment and anatomic features of the inferior alveolar canal as risk factors for injury of the inferior alveolar nerve at third molar surgery [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 70(3): 514-520.
[26] Eyrich G, Seifert B, Matthews F, et al. 3-Dimensional imaging for lower third molars: is there an implication for surgical removal? [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011, 69(7): 1867-1872.
[27] Sanmartí-Garcia G, Valmaseda-Castell&#x0dbc0;&#x0dda9;n E, Gay-Escoda C. Does computed tomography prevent inferior alveolar nerve injuries caused by lower third molar removal? [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 70(1): 5-11.
[28] Alessandri Bonetti G, Bendandi M, Laino L, et al. Orthodontic extraction: riskless extraction of impacted lower third molars close to the mandibular canal [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007, 65(12): 2580-2586.
[29] Park W, Park JS, Kim YM, et al. Orthodontic extrusion of the lower third molar with an orthodontic mini implant [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2010, 110(4): e1-6.
[30] Dolanmaz D, Yildirim G, Isik K, et al. A preferable technique for protecting the inferior alveolar nerve: coronectomy [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009, 67(6): 1234-1238.
[31] Leung YY, Cheung LK. Safety of coronectomy versus excision of wisdom teeth: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2009, 108(6): 821-827.
[32] Cilasun U, Yildirim T, Guzeldemir E, et al. Coronectomy in patients with high risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury diagnosed by computed tomography [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011, 69(6): 1557-1561.
[33] Tolstunov L, Javid B, Keyes L, et al. Pericoronal ostectomy: an alternative surgical technique for management of mandibular third molars in close proximity to the inferior alveolar nerve [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011, 69(7): 1858-1866.