SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3

COMPARISON OF BIFID AND TRIFID CANAL IN PATIENTS WITH UNILATERAL MANDIBULAR LESIONS : CROSS-SECTIONAL RESEARCH

Kardelen Demirezer(INONU UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF DENTISTRY, DENTISTRY PR.)0009-0008-8751-1781
Oğuzhan Altun(INONU UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-5020-8032
Eda Nur Topaloğlu(INONU UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-3667-5950
Elif Sobi(INONU UNIVERSITY)0009-0009-8542-0496
Numan Dedeoğlu(INONU UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-0892-3654
Pages
179–185
Publication Date
2025-12-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CBCT is an advantageous method for detecting boundary features of the lesion, perforation presence and identification and configuration of bifid canals, surgical treatment of the mandible procedures, success of anesthesia, postoperative complications.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with unilateral mandibular pathologic lesions the presence of bifid and trifid mandibular canal on the intact and lesioned sides aims to compare with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, 50 patients with mandibular pathologic lesions were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CBCT is an advantageous method for detecting boundary features of the lesion, perforation presence and identification and configuration of bifid canals, surgical treatment of the mandible procedures, success of anesthesia, postoperative complications.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:bifid mandibular canal · trifid mandibular canal · pathologic lesion

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with unilateral mandibular pathologic lesions the presence of bifid and trifid mandibular canal on the intact and lesioned sides aims to compare with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, 50 patients with mandibular pathologic lesions were included. The presence of bifid and trifid mandibular canal on the side of the lesion and non-lesion was examined. Results: Bifid mandibular canal was detected in 13 patients (26%) on the lesion side and in 13 patients (26%) on the non-lesion side.Trifid mandibular canal was detected in 5 patients (10%) on the lesion side and in 1 patient (2%) on the non-lesion side. There was no statistically significant difference in the presence of bifid and trifid mandibular canals in the lesioned and unlesioned sides (p>0.05).When gender, age, lesion size, lesion borders, and the presence of perforation in the lesion were considered, there was no statistically significant difference in the presence of bifid and trifid mandibular canals (p>0.05). Conclusion: Pathologic lesions and lesion characteristics in the mandible had no effect on the bifid and trifid canal. CBCT is an advantageous method for detecting boundary features of the lesion, perforation presence and identification and configuration of bifid canals, surgical treatment of the mandible procedures, success of anesthesia, postoperative complications.

Özet

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with unilateral mandibular pathologic lesions the presence of bifid and trifid mandibular canal on the intact and lesioned sides aims to compare with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, 50 patients with mandibular pathologic lesions were included. The presence of bifid and trifid mandibular canal on the side of the lesion and non-lesion was examined. Results: Bifid mandibular canal was detected in 13 patients (26%) on the lesion side and in 13 patients (26%) on the non-lesion side.Trifid mandibular canal was detected in 5 patients (10%) on the lesion side and in 1 patient (2%) on the non-lesion side. There was no statistically significant difference in the presence of bifid and trifid mandibular canals in the lesioned and unlesioned sides (p>0.05).When gender, age, lesion size, lesion borders, and the presence of perforation in the lesion were considered, there was no statistically significant difference in the presence of bifid and trifid mandibular canals (p>0.05). Conclusion: Pathologic lesions and lesion characteristics in the mandible had no effect on the bifid and trifid canal. CBCT is an advantageous method for detecting boundary features of the lesion, perforation presence and identification and configuration of bifid canals, surgical treatment of the mandible procedures, success of anesthesia, postoperative complications.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demirezer, K., Altun, O., Topaloğlu, E. N., Sobi, E., Dedeoğlu, N. (2025). COMPARISON OF BIFID AND TRIFID CANAL IN PATIENTS WITH UNILATERAL MANDIBULAR LESIONS : CROSS-SECTIONAL RESEARCH. Uluslararası Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.21306/dishekimligi.1655682

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Naitoh M, et al. Observation of bifid mandibular canal using cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(1):8-12.
  2. Zhou X, Gao X, Zhang J. Bifid mandibular canals: CBCT assessment and macroscopic observation. Surg Radiol Anat. 2020;42:1073–1079.
  3. Neves FS, et al. Correlation of panoramic radiography and cone beam CT findings in the assessment of the relationship between impacted mandibular third molars and the mandibular canal. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(7):553–557.
  4. Neves FS, et al. Comparative analysis of mandibular anatomical variations between panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;18:419–424.
  5. Kuribayashi A, et al. Bifid mandibular canals: cone beam computed tomography evaluation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(4):235–239.
  6. Iliescu VI, et al. Bifid mandibular canal: a case report. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2021;62(2):633.
  7. Wadhwani P, et al. Mandibular canal variant: a case report. J Oral Pathol Med. 2008;37(2):122–124.
  8. Teerijoki-Oksa T, et al. Risk factors of nerve injury during mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;31(1):33–39.
  9. Lew K, Townsend G. Failure to obtain adequate anaesthesia associated with a bifid mandibular canal: a case report. Aust Dent J. 2006;51(1):86–90.
  10. Mizbah K, et al. The clinical relevance of bifid and trifid mandibular canals. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;16:147–151.
  11. Okumuş Ö, Dumlu A. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canal according to gender, type and side. J Dent Sci. 2019;14(2):126–133.
  12. Nithya J, Aswath N. Assessing the prevalence and morphological characteristics of bifid mandibular canal using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective cross-sectional study. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2020;10:30.
  13. Sonneveld KA, et al. Bifid mandibular canal: a case review and retrospective review of CBCTs. Implant Dent. 2018;27(6):682–686.
  14. Claeys V, Wackens G. Bifid mandibular canal: literature review and case report. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34(1):55–58.
  15. Carter R, Keen E. The intramandibular course of the inferior alveolar nerve. J Anat. 1971;108(Pt 3):433–440.
  16. Nortjé C, Farman AG, Grotepass F. Variations in the normal anatomy of the inferior dental canal: a retrospective study of panoramic radiographs. Br J Oral Surg. 1977;15(1):55–63.
  17. Langlais RP, Broadus R, Glass BJ. Bifid mandibular canals in panoramic radiographs. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985;110(6):923–926.
  18. Fu E, et al. Bifid mandibular canals and factors associated with their presence: a CT evaluation in a Taiwanese population. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(2):e64–e67.
  19. Orhan K, et al. Evaluation of bifid mandibular canals with cone-beam computed tomography in a Turkish adult population: a retrospective study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2011;33(6):501–507.
  20. Orhan K, et al. Evaluation of bifid mandibular canals with cone-beam computed tomography in a Turkish adult population: a retrospective study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2011;33:501–507.
  21. Villaça-Carvalho MFL, et al. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canals by cone beam computed tomography. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;20:289–294.
  22. Kang JH, et al. The incidence and configuration of the bifid mandibular canal in Koreans using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44(1):53–58.
  23. Sanchis J, Peñarrocha M, Soler F. Bifid mandibular canal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61(4):422–424.
  24. Rashsuren O, et al. Assessment of bifid and trifid mandibular canals using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44(3):229–235.
  25. de Castro MAA, et al. Mandibular canal branching assessed with cone beam computed tomography. Radiol Med. 2018;123:601–608.
  26. Castro MAA, et al. Case–control study of mandibular canal branching and tooth-related inflammatory lesions. Oral Radiol. 2018;34:229–236.
  27. Awad MA. Most radiolucent lesions of the jaw are classified as granulomas and cysts in a US population. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2013;13(2):70 71.
  28. Misirlioglu M, et al. Evaluation of idiopathic osteosclerosis on panoramic radiographs and its relationship with the mandibular canal using CBCT. J Oral Maxillofac Radiol. 2013;1(2):48–54.
  29. Koong B. The basic principles of radiological interpretation. Aust Dent J. 2012;57:33–39.
  30. Dunfee BL, et al. Radiologic and pathologic characteristics of benign and malignant lesions of the mandible. Radiographics. 2006;26(6):1751–1768.
  31. Avril L, et al. Radiolucent lesions of the mandible: a pattern-based approach to diagnosis. Insights Imaging. 2014;5:85–101.
  32. Harmon M, et al. A radiological approach to benign and malignant lesions of the mandible. Clin Radiol. 2015;70(4):335–350.
  33. Scholl RJ, et al. Cysts and cystic lesions of the mandible: clinical and radiologic-histopathologic review. Radiographics. 1999;19(5):1107–1124.
  34. Velvart P, Hecker H, Tillinger G. Detection of the apical lesion and the mandibular canal in conventional radiography and CT. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001;92(6):682–688.
  35. Mortazavi H, Baharvand M, Safi Y. Scalloped border as a diagnostic aid for differentiating jaw lesions: a pictorial essay. Imaging Sci Dent. 2022;52(3):309.
  36. Chuenchompoonut V, et al. Accuracy of panoramic radiography in assessing radiolucent jaw lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003;32(2):80–86.
  37. Asutay F, et al. Three-dimensional volumetric assessment of decompression on large mandibular odontogenic cysts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(6):1159–1166.
  38. Carneiro MC, et al. Imaging characteristics of odontogenic cysts and tumours: a retrospective CBCT study. SN Compr Clin Med. 2022;4(1):13.