| ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
|
| Year : 2020 | Volume
: 12
| Issue : 2 | Page : 148-153 |
|
|
Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Nasopalatine Canal in Dentulous and Edentulous Maxilla – A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study
Gayatri Mehrotra1, Ajay Bhoosreddy2, Seema Bhoosreddy3, Chetan Bhadage2, Komal Sharma4, Karan Shah2
1 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, ITS Dental College and Hospital, Greater Noida, India
2 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, MGV's KBH Dental College and Hospital, Nashik, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, MGV's KBH Dental College and Hospital, Nashik, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, S.G.T Dental College and Hospital, Gurgaon, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Gayatri Mehrotra
240 Nehru Nagar, Agra - 282 002, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jicdro.jicdro_18_20
|
|
|
Introduction: Dental esthetics has become an important concern today, and the patients consider the esthetic outcome to be an important factor in the anterior maxilla. Nasopalatine canal (NPC) plays an important role in making decisions regarding implant placement in the anterior maxilla. The aims of the present study were to analyze and compare the length and diameter of NPC and bone dimensions anterior to the canal in dentulous and edentulous maxilla for dental implant consideration using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Sixty CBCT scans were collected retrospectively for the examination of NPC of individuals who had undergone CBCT scans for dental treatment purposes. The length of the canal and bone dimensions anterior to the canal were measured in multiplanar reformation. Results: The mean canal length was less in edentulous than dentulous patients. Moreover, the bone width anterior to the canal and bone height were also more in dentulous patients, with mean bone width being 8.518 ± 1.9 mm and bone height 7.993 ± 1.4 mm. The bone width and bone height in edentulous cases were 6.910 ± 1.44 mm and 5.183 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. Conclusion: Although there are variations in each patient, thorough knowledge of NPC and bone dimension is essential for implant placement to avoid any complication.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
