Next Article in Journal
Elective Tracheotomy in Patients Receiving Mandibular Reconstructions: Reduced Postoperative Ventilation Time and Lower Incidence of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia
Previous Article in Journal
Artificial Neural Networks in Lung Cancer Research: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/jcm12030881
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Locating the Mandibular Lingula Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Literature Review

by
Chun-Ming Chen
1,2,†,
Hui-Na Lee
3,†,
Ying-Ting Chen
4 and
Kun-Jung Hsu
1,5,*
1
School of Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan
2
Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Dentistry, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung 80756, Taiwan
3
Division of Conservative Dentistry, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung 80756, Taiwan
4
School of Dentistry, CEU Cardenal Herrera University, 46113 Valencia, Spain
5
Department of Dentistry, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung 80756, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(3), 881; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030881
Submission received: 15 October 2022 / Revised: 11 January 2023 / Accepted: 19 January 2023 / Published: 22 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to review the literature on adult mandibular lingula (ML) locations and related distances determined using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). A search was conducted for studies on CBCT using the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. The search results were limited to studies published between 1970 and 2021. The inclusion criteria were the investigation of ML location, CBCT, and participants aged ≥18 years. Eligible studies were examined for the distances from the lingual tip to the anterior ramus border, posterior ramus border, sigmoid notch, inferior ramus border, and occlusal plane. Eight studies on CBCT qualified for inclusion in the study. The mean distances from the ML to the anterior ramus border were 15.57 to 20 mm. In most of these, the ML was located above the occlusal plane. No significant differences were observed in the location and related distances for the ML among patients of different sexes, ethnicities, or skeletal patterns.

1. Introduction

Identifying the position of the mandibular foramen (MF) is essential for the successful administration of an inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and for avoiding damage to the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle during ramus surgery. Located on the medial surface of the ramus, the MF is a bony orifice through which the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle enters the mandible. The mandibular lingula (ML), located above the MF, is a key anatomical landmark for determining the position of the MF and for the orientation of the surgeon during ramus surgery. The ML is a bone plate structure that medially limits the MF and provides an attachment area for the sphenomandibular ligament [1]. Determining the shape, position, and height of the ML is crucial for dentists and surgeons during IANBs and ramus surgeries [2]. Understanding the position of the ML and the surrounding nerves and blood vessels is critical for a successful operation, thereby preventing excessive intraoperative blood loss and postoperative numbness in the lower lip [3,4].
In the past, determination of the morphometry of the lingula required using the dry mandible [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Recently, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has provided high quality and accurate three-dimensional images to replace dry mandibles in morphometric study [11,12,13,14]. Studies [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22] have employed CBCT images to determine the shape of the ML and measure the distances related to the ML. Although CBCT provides real-time measurements, the results obtained using the images may be affected by the resolution used for image processing and the applied image-recognition method. Furthermore, the ramus borders to ML distances are closely related to the horizontal and vertical reference planes set for CBCT scans and are considerably influenced by the consistency of the reference point. Therefore, this study reviewed articles on CBCT scans separately and explored the differences in the relative position of the ML on the ramus and its distance from other anatomical landmarks among patients of different sexes, ethnicities, and skeletal patterns. The present study included all reference planes used in the articles on CBCT.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. The search results were limited to studies published between 1970 and 2021. Results of participants aged <18 years were excluded from the review. The first search term used was “mandibular lingula location.” These results were further examined for the inclusion of CBCT.

2.2. Study Selection and Eligibility

Two authors of this study selected the articles using a data retrieval system. After reading the titles and abstracts, the authors independently assessed the selected articles based on eligibility criteria. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Randomized controlled trials and observational studies; (2) Research participants aged ≥18 years. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Non-English articles; (2) Non-human studies; (3) Duplicate articles. The authors read the full text of any article for which they could not reach a consensus regarding eligibility. Regarding the inter-rater reliability, the kappa coefficient was 0.890 (p < 0.05), demonstrating a high level of consistency between the two authors’ discretionary eligibility selections.

2.3. Data Extraction and Analysis of ML Location

The data were examined independently by the two authors according to the research methodology. ML was identified as a reference landmark, and its related distances were obtained. If the results extracted by the two authors from the same article were inconsistent, the authors discussed the article with other authors to reach a consensus. The ML location was determined based on relevant reference planes (Figure 1). The ML-related distances (Figure 2) were measured using the following landmarks: lingula tip to anterior ramus border (As: landmark (shortest distance) at the anterior border of ramus; Ai: intersection landmark parallel to horizontal plane at the anterior border of ramus), posterior ramus border (Ps: landmark (shortest distance) at the posterior border of ramus; Pi: intersection landmark parallel to the horizontal plane at the posterior border of ramus), sigmoid notch (Ss: lowest location (shortest distance) of the sigmoid notch; Si: intersection landmark parallel to vertical plane and through lingula at the sigmoid notch), inferior ramus border (Is: landmark (shortest distance) at the inferior border of ramus; Ii: intersection landmark parallel to vertical plane and through lingula at the inferior border of ramus), and occlusal plane.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Eligibility

Using the term “mandibular lingula location” (Figure 3), 121 articles were identified from electronic databases (PubMed, n = 53; Web of Science, n = 36; Embase, n = 32). Regarding the mandibular lingual location and CBCT, 29 articles were identified from electronic databases (PubMed, n = 12; Web of Science, n = 11; Embase, n = 6). After verifying the eligibility of the selected articles, eight remained for inclusion in the study and full-text review by the authors.

3.2. Data Extraction and Analysis

3.2.1. ML Height

The sample size of the CBCT group ranged from 60 to 412 participants (Table 1); the youngest participant was 18 years old and the oldest participant was 71 years old. The occlusal plane was used as the coordinate axis for measurements in five studies [16,18,19,20,22]. The mean ML height ranged from 7 to 9.08 mm [16,17,21].

3.2.2. Distances from Lingual Tip to Anterior Ramus Border and Posterior Ramus Border

The mean distance of the ML to the anterior ramus border ranged from 15.57 to 20 mm [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. The mean distance of the ML to the posterior ramus border ranged from 12 to 18.2 mm [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22].

3.2.3. Distances from Lingual Tip to Sigmoid Notch and Inferior Ramus Border

The mean distance of the ML to the sigmoid notch ranged from 13.34 to 20.72 mm [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. The mean distance of the ML to the inferior ramus border ranged from 30.4 to 39.1 mm [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22].

3.2.4. Distances from Lingual Tip to Occlusal Plane

Most ML locations were above the occlusal plane. Five articles reported that the ML was above the occlusal plane, with a distance range of 3.57 to 11.77 mm [16,18,19,20,22].

4. Discussion

Mandibular growth is fully developed at approximately 18 years of age. Therefore, studies were excluded from our review if the included patients were younger than 18. The outcomes of the eligible studies for different sexes, races, and skeletal patterns are discussed below.

4.1. ML Height

Sekerci and Sisman [16] observed that the ML height on the right side of the mandible was greater in men than in women. Hsu et al. [21] reported that the ML height was significantly greater in men than in women and that there were no significant differences in the ML height between the left and right sides of the mandible. They also noted no significant differences in ML height among patients with Class I, Class II, or Class III malocclusion. ML height had similar dimensions in different races and skeletal patterns.

4.2. Anterior Ramus Border to Mandibular Lingula Distance (ARL Distance)

The reported distance of the ML from the anterior ramus border differed considerably between studies. Findik et al. [15] reported a mean distance of 15–16 mm, whereas Hsu et al. [21] reported a distance of 18–20 mm. These inconsistencies arose because each study used different reference points and planes (horizontal and vertical). Findik et al. [15] directly measured the ML distance from the anterior ramus border using the axial plane as the reference plane, thereby obtaining the lowest measurement results. Other studies [16,18,20] that used the occlusal plane as the reference plane obtained measurement results larger than those of Findik et al. [15] but smaller than those of Hsu et al. [21], who measured the distance using the Frankfort horizontal plane as the reference plane.
Several studies [17,18,21,22] reported no significant differences between the sexes or between the left and right sides of the mandible. However, Findik et al. [15] reported that the distance between the ML and the anterior ramus border on the left side of the mandible was significantly greater than that on the right side. Hsu et al. [21] reported that the distance of the ML from the anterior ramus border was significantly greater in men than in women but observed no significant differences in the distance of the ML from the anterior ramus border in patients with different skeletal patterns. However, Zhou et al. [18] reported that the ML distance from the anterior ramus border was significantly greater in men with a low gonial angle (LGA) than that in men with a high gonial angle (HGA). Among the distances to the lingual, the anterior ramus border to the lingula distance is more important than the posterior border to the lingual distance.
For clinical application, we recommend using the occlusal plane as a reference plane. The measured landmark is a plane running parallel to the occlusal plane, which runs through the ML and intercepts the anterior ramus border. This method should result in more accurate administration of IANB and avoid damage to the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle during ramus surgery.

4.3. Posterior Ramus Border to Lingula Distance

Some studies [16,18,19,20,21] stated that the distance between the ML and the posterior ramus border was significantly greater in men than in women, except for Lupi et al. [22], who observed no significant differences between the sexes. Sekerci and Sisman [16] proposed that the distance between the ML and the posterior ramus border is significantly greater on the left side of the mandible in men than that on the left side of the mandible in women. Seneal et al. [17] and Hsu et al. [21] noted no significant differences in the distance between the ML and the posterior ramus border on the left and right sides of the mandible. Hsu et al. [21] also observed no significant differences between participants with different classes of malocclusions. However, Zhou et al. [20] reported that the distance between the ML and the posterior ramus border was significantly greater in men with LGA than that in men with HGA, in women with LGA than that in women with HGA, in men with LGA than that in women with LGA, and in men with HGA than that in women with HGA.
Participants of different races, ages, and sexes were recruited in each of the aforementioned studies [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. The use of different reference planes, including the occlusal plane, Frankfort horizontal plane, and axial plane, resulted in considerable differences in the measured distances. Regarding the various landmarks at the posterior ramus border, we suggest that the occlusal plane is a better reference plane to set both landmarks of anterior and posterior ramus borders.

4.4. Sigmoid Notch to Lingual Distance

Regarding the distance from the ML to the sigmoid notch, Lupi et al. [22] reported that the lowest mean distance was 13.34 mm in women. However, the measurements were not performed using the lowest point of the sigmoid notch. Instead, the authors measured the distance vertical to the occlusal plane from the lingula tip to the sigmoid notch, thereby obtaining a lower value. Lupi et al. [22] and Hsu et al. [21] reported no significant differences between sexes. Seneal et al. [17] and Hsu et al. [21] observed no significant difference between the left and right sides of the mandible. Hsu et al. [21] reported no significant differences in the distance between the ML and sigmoid notches in patients with different skeletal patterns. However, Akcay et al. [19] noted that the distance between the ML and the sigmoid notch was significantly greater in men with Class III malocclusion than that in women with Class III malocclusion. However, there were no significant differences in the distance of the ML from the sigmoid notch in men and women with Class I malocclusion. Zhou et al. [18] observed that the distance between the ML and the sigmoid notch was significantly greater in men with LGA than in those with HGA. Moreover, the number of men with LGA and HGA was greater than the number of women with LGA and HGA. For consistency, we recommend that the measured landmark be the lowest point of the sigmoid notch.

4.5. Inferior Ramus Border to Lingula Distance

Among all studies, Senel et al. [17] reported the greatest distance (38.3 mm) of the ML from the inferior ramus border. This result can be attributed to the reference plane used by Senel et al. [17]. Several articles [16,18,20,21] reported that the distance between the ML and the inferior ramus border was significantly greater in men than in women. However, Lupi et al. [22] reported no significant differences in the distance between the ML and the inferior ramus border between the sexes. Seneal et al. [17] and Hsu et al. [21] noted no significant differences in the ML distance from the inferior ramus border between the left and right sides of the mandible. Hsu et al. [21] observed no significant differences in the distance between the ML and the inferior ramus border in patients with different classes of malocclusion. However, Zhou et al. [18] reported that the distance between the ML and the inferior ramus border was significantly greater in men with LGA than that in men with HGA, and in women with LGA than that in women with HGA. Moreover, the number of men with LGA and HGA was greater than the number of women with LGA and HGA. In each of the aforementioned studies, participants of different ethnicities, ages, and sexes were recruited. Different reference planes, sigmoid notch landmarks, and inferior border landmarks were used, resulting in considerable differences in the measured distances. Tracing an obvious notch at the inferior border of the mandible is not always possible. Therefore, we recommend identifying two landmarks: (1) Setting a plane through the ML vertically to the occlusal plane and intercepting the inferior border; (2) Setting a plane from the lowest point of the sigmoid notch through to the inferior border.

4.6. Lingula to Occlusal Plane Distance

Akcay et al. [19] reported the distance of the ML from the occlusal plane as 8–10 mm, whereas Lupi et al. [22] reported this distance as 10–12 mm. There were no significant differences in the distance of the ML from the occlusal plane between the sexes or between the left and right sides of the mandible. Akcay et al. [19] reported that the distance between the ML and the occlusal plane was significantly greater in patients with Class III malocclusion than that in those with Class I malocclusion. Zhou et al. [18] reported that this distance was higher in men with LGA than that in women with LGA, and in men with HGA than that in women with HGA. Lingula-to-occlusal plane distance is more important than other distances in terms of administering an IANB and performing ramus surgery. CBCT is a useful tool for identifying ML morphology, location, and relation to the occlusal plane to avoid damage to the neurovascular bundle.

4.7. Clinical Relevance and Limitations of the Study

Numerous studies [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26] have been conducted on the position of the ML and have presented different results. CBCT images were affected by the resolution used for image processing. Moreover, the varied settings for different reference planes and points may have influenced the results of the study. Regarding clinical relevance, the occlusal plane is the preferred reference plane to identify the ML and MF to prevent injury to the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle.
The limitations of this literature review were as follows: (1) Varied reference planes; (2) Rare reports of edentulous people; (3) Imbalance in the age distribution of the population; (4) Racial distribution disequilibrium of the population. For clinical applications, we recommend using the occlusal plane as the reference plane in future studies. However, there should be modifications to the occlusal plane if the patient is edentulous. Furthermore, future studies should include a sample distribution that considers the age and race of the study population.

5. Conclusions

Differences in age, race, and sex of participants, and in reference planes and points may have generated different measurement results. Significant differences were observed in the ML height between patients of different sexes and races and of those with different skeletal patterns. In most studies, the ML was located above the occlusal plane. In addition, most studies reported no significant differences in the distance of the ML to the anterior ramus border, posterior ramus border, sigmoid notch, or inferior ramus border among patients of different sexes and races and among those with different skeletal patterns. Additionally, the distances of the ML to the anterior ramus border, posterior ramus border, sigmoid notch, and inferior ramus border were significantly greater in patients with LGA than those in patients with HGA.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.-J.H., C.-M.C. and H.-N.L.; methodology, Y.-T.C.; writing—original draft preparation, K.-J.H.; writing—review and editing, C.-M.C. and H.-N.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable for studies not involving humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Richard, L.; Drake, A.; Vogl, W.; Adam, W.; Mitchell, M. Head and Neck: Gray’s Anatomy for Students, 2nd ed.; Churchill Livingstone: London, UK, 2010; 922p. [Google Scholar]
  2. Yeh, A.Y.E.; Finn, B.P.; Jones, R.H.B.; Goss, A.N. The variable position of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) in the mandibular ramus: A computed tomography (CT) study. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2018, 40, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Park, J.H.; Jung, H.D.; Kim, H.J.; Jung, Y.S. Anatomical study of the location of the antilingula, lingula, and mandibular foramen for vertical ramus osteotomy. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018, 40, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lima, F.J.; Oliveira Neto, O.B.; Barbosa, F.T.; Sousa-Rodrigues, C.F. Location, shape and anatomic relations of the mandibular foramen and the mandibular lingula: A contribution to surgical procedures in the ramus of the mandible. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 20, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tuli, A.; Choudhry, R.; Choudhry, S.; Raheja, S.; Agarwal, S. Variation in shape of the lingula in the adult human mandible. J. Anat. 2000, 197, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kositbowornchai, S.; Siritapetawee, M.; Damrongrungruang, T.; Khongkankong, W.; Chatrchaiwiwatana, S.; Khamanarong, K.; Chanthaooplee, T. Shape of the lingula and its localization by panoramic radiograph versus dry mandibular measurement. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2007, 29, 689–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Murlimanju, B.V.; Prabhu, L.V.; Pai, M.M.; Paul, M.T.; Saralaya, V.V.; Kumar, C.G. Morphological study of lingula of the mandibles in South Indian population. Morphologie 2012, 96, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jung, Y.H.; Cho, B.H.; Hwang, J.J. Location and shape of the mandibular lingula: Comparison of skeletal class I and class III patients using panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci. Dent. 2018, 48, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hayward, J.; Richardson, E.R.; Malhotra, S.K. The mandibular foramen: Its anteroposterior position. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1977, 44, 837–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jansisyanont, P.; Apinhasmit, W.; Chompoopong, S. Shape, height, and location of the lingula for sagittal ramus osteotomy in Thais. Clin. Anat. 2009, 22, 787–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sekerci, A.E.; Cantekin, K.; Aydinbelge, M. Cone beam computed tomographic analysis of the shape, height, and location of the mandibular lingula in a population of children. BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 825453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Freire-Maia, B.; Machado, V.D.; Valerio, C.S.; Custódio, A.L.; Manzi, F.R.; Junqueira, J.L. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on multi-slice and cone beam computed tomography scans to detect the mandibular canal during bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 46, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tengku Shaeran, T.A.; Shaari, R.; Abdul Rahman, S.; Alam, M.K.; Muhamad Husin, A. Morphometric analysis of prognathic and non-prognathic mandibles in relation to BSSO sites using CBCT. J. Oral Biol. Craniofac. Res. 2017, 7, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Ahn, B.S.; Oh, S.H.; Heo, C.K.; Kim, G.T.; Choi, Y.S.; Hwang, E.H. Cone-beam computed tomography of mandibular foramen and lingula for mandibular anesthesia. Imaging Sci. Dent. 2020, 50, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Findik, Y.; Yildirim, D.; Baykul, T. Three-dimensional anatomic analysis of the lingula and mandibular foramen: A cone beam computed tomography study. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2014, 25, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sekerci, A.E.; Sisman, Y. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of the shape, height, and location of the mandibular lingula. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2014, 36, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Senel, B.; Ozkan, A.; Altug, H.A. Morphological evaluation of the mandibular lingula using cone-beam computed tomography. Folia Morphol. 2015, 74, 497–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Zhou, C.; Jeon, T.H.; Jun, S.H.; Kwon, J.J. Evaluation of mandibular lingula and foramen location using 3-dimensional mandible models reconstructed by cone-beam computed tomography. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017, 39, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Akcay, H.; Kalabalık, F.; Tatar, B.; Ulu, M. Location of the mandibular lingula: Comparison of skeletal Class I and Class III patients in relation to ramus osteotomy using cone-beam computed tomography. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 120, 504–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhao, K.; Zhang, B.; Hou, Y.; Miao, L.; Wang, R.; Yuan, H. Imaging study on relationship between the location of lingula and the Gonial angle in a Chinese population. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2019, 41, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hsu, K.J.; Tseng, Y.C.; Liang, S.W.; Hsiao, S.Y.; Chen, C.M. Dimension and Location of the Mandibular Lingula: Comparisons of Gender and Skeletal Patterns Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 2571534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Lupi, S.M.; Landini, J.; Olivieri, G.; Todaro, C.; Scribante, A.; Rodriguez YBaena, R. Correlation between the Mandibular Lingula Position and Some Anatomical Landmarks in Cone Beam CT. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Apinhasmit, W.; Chompoopong, S.; Jansisyanont, P.; Supachutikul, K.; Rattanathamsakul, N.; Ruangves, S.; Sangvichien, S. The study of position of antilingula, midwaist of mandibular ramus and midpoint between coronoid process and gonion in relation to lingula of 92 Thai dried mandibles as potential surgical landmarks for vertical ramus osteotomy. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2011, 33, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Monnazzi, M.S.; Passeri, L.A.; Gabrielli, M.F.; Bolini, P.D.; de Carvalho, W.R.; da Costa Machado, H. Anatomic study of the mandibular foramen, lingula and antilingula in dry mandibles, and its statistical relationship between the true lingula and the antilingula. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 41, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jang, H.Y.; Han, S.J. Measurement of mandibular lingula location using cone-beam computed tomography and internal oblique ridge-guided inferior alveolar nerve block. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 45, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Choi, D.Y.; Hur, M.S. Anatomical review of the mandibular lingula for inferior alveolar nerve block. Folia Morphol. 2021, 80, 786–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 00881 g001 550
Figure 1. Reference lines: Brown line: Frankfort horizontal plane; Green line: axial plane of ramus; Red line: occlusal plane; Yellow line: vertical plane to occlusal plane.
Figure 1. Reference lines: Brown line: Frankfort horizontal plane; Green line: axial plane of ramus; Red line: occlusal plane; Yellow line: vertical plane to occlusal plane.
Jcm 12 00881 g001
Jcm 12 00881 g002 550
Figure 2. Reference lines: Brown line: Frankfort horizontal plane; Green line: axial plane of ramus; Red line: occlusal plane; Yellow line: vertical plane to occlusal plane. Landmarks: L: lingual, As: landmark (shortest distance) at the anterior border of ramus; Ai: intersection landmark parallel to horizontal plane at the anterior border of ramus; Ps: landmark (shortest distance) at the posterior border of ramus; Pi: intersection landmark parallel to horizontal plane at the posterior border of ramus; Ss: deepest location (shortest distance) of the sigmoid notch; Si: intersection landmark parallel to vertical plane and through lingula at the sigmoid notch; Is: landmark (shortest distance) at the inferior border of ramus; Ii: intersection landmark parallel to vertical plane and through lingula at the inferior border of ramus.
Figure 2. Reference lines: Brown line: Frankfort horizontal plane; Green line: axial plane of ramus; Red line: occlusal plane; Yellow line: vertical plane to occlusal plane. Landmarks: L: lingual, As: landmark (shortest distance) at the anterior border of ramus; Ai: intersection landmark parallel to horizontal plane at the anterior border of ramus; Ps: landmark (shortest distance) at the posterior border of ramus; Pi: intersection landmark parallel to horizontal plane at the posterior border of ramus; Ss: deepest location (shortest distance) of the sigmoid notch; Si: intersection landmark parallel to vertical plane and through lingula at the sigmoid notch; Is: landmark (shortest distance) at the inferior border of ramus; Ii: intersection landmark parallel to vertical plane and through lingula at the inferior border of ramus.
Jcm 12 00881 g002
Jcm 12 00881 g003 550
Figure 3. Process flow of article selection in the mandibular lingula location using cone-beam computed tomography.
Figure 3. Process flow of article selection in the mandibular lingula location using cone-beam computed tomography.
Jcm 12 00881 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic and study characteristics in the included studies (cone-beam computed tomography: CBCT).
Table 1. Demographic and study characteristics in the included studies (cone-beam computed tomography: CBCT).
AuthorAge/Range (Years)Patients/Total SidesAxis of CoordinatesSexRaceLandmarksHeight of LingulaAnterior Ramus to LingulaPosterior Ramus to LingulaSigmoid Notch to LingulaInferior Border to LingulaAbove Occlusal PlaneBelow Occlusal Plane
  YearF (Female)Right (R)
  Country of OriginM (Male)Left (L)
Findik et al. [15]19–71 yearsn = 96Axial planeNATurkAiNA15.57 (R)NANANANANA
  2014 192 side 15.73 (L) *NANANANANA
  Turkey
Sekerci and Sisman [16]Adultn = 412Occlusal planeTotal (199 F, 213 M)TurkAi, Pi, Ss, Ii7.9116.7713.0215.3233.433.6NA
  2014 824 side F R715.9712.4313.9530.933.62NA
  Turkey M R9.08 *18.23 *13.6117.21 *35.53 *3.66NA
F L7.2415.61214.1730.943.57NA
M L8.5817.2614.03 *15.9336.32 *3.58NA
Senel et al. [17]46n = 63Axial plane28 F, 35 MTurkAi, Pi, Ss, Ii
  201525–70 years126 sides Total7.818.516.918.138.3NANA
  Turkey R8.318.416.718.137.6NANA
L7.418.717.118.139.1NANA
Zhou et al. [18]26.8n = 106Occlusal plane55 FKoreanAi, Pi, Ss, IiNA18.31715.530.55.81.9
  201718–36 years121 sides 51 M NA18.218.2 *15.735.3 *6.20
  Korea
Akcay et al. [19]Class In = 30Occlusal planeTotalTurkAs, Ps, SsNANA16.5517.7NA8.12NA
  201918–37 years60 sides 14 F NANA15.9217.07NA7.60NA
  Turkey 16 M NANA17.09 *18.24NA8.58NA
Class IIIn = 30 Total NANA15.8218.73NA9.91 *NA
18–36 years60 sides 16 F NANA1517.81NA9.89NA
14 M NANA16.75 *19.79 *NA9.93NA
Zhao et al. [20] n = 407Occlusal plane206 F, HGA (270 sides)ChineseAs, Ps, Ss, IsNA16.7716.4216.2232.375.03NA
  201920–35 years814 sides LGA (142 sides) NA17.1817.05 *16.633.32 *5.21NA
  China 201 M, HGA (218 sides) NA16.5316.916.7634.745.97NA
LGA (184 sides) NA17.63 *17.94 *17.64 *36.86 *5.88NA
HGA (F = 270 sides) NA16.7716.4216.2232.375.03NA
(M = 218 sides) NA16.5316.9 *16.76 *34.74 *5.97 *NA
LGA (F = 142 sides) NA17.1817.0516.633.325.21NA
(M = 184 sides) NA17.6317.94 *17.64 *36.86 *5.88 *NA
Hsu et al. [21]Adultn = 72FrankfortTotalTaiwaneseAi, Pi, Ss, Ii8.0719.2115.2220.0431.2NANA
  2020 144 sideshorizontal49 F 7.7618.8514.8919.9930.4NANA
  Taiwan plane23 M 8.73 *19.99 *15.93 *20.1432.91 *NANA
R8.219.2315.2520.5131.26NANA
L7.9519.215.1919.5731.14NANA
Class I (n = 26)8.2418.8615.3619.7431.28NANA
Class II (n = 21)7.8318.7115.5120.7231.4NANA
Class III (n = 25)8.112014.8319.7730.95NANA
Lupi et al. [22]34.93n = 111Occlusal planeTotalItalianAi, Pi, Si, IiNA16.9615.2813.8731.211.22NA
  202118–88 years201 sides 43 F NA16.914.8513.3430.0511.77NA
  Italy 68 M NA17.0516.0415.0133.0610.87NA
n: number of patients; NA: not available; *: statistically significant; Lingula tip to anterior ramus border. As: landmark (shortest distance) at the anterior border of ramus, Ai: intersection landmark parallel to horizontal plane at the anterior border of ramus; Lingula tip to posterior ramus border. Ps: landmark (shortest distance) at the posterior border of ramus, Pi: intersection landmark parallel to horizontal plane at the posterior border of ramus; Lingula tip to sigmoid notch. Ss: lowest location (shortest distance) of the sigmoid notch, Si: intersection landmark parallel to vertical plane and through lingula at the sigmoid notch; Lingula tip to inferior ramus border. Is: landmark (shortest distance) at the inferior border of ramus, Ii: intersection landmark parallel to vertical plane and through lingula at the inferior border of ramus.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, C.-M.; Lee, H.-N.; Chen, Y.-T.; Hsu, K.-J. Locating the Mandibular Lingula Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Literature Review. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030881

AMA Style

Chen C-M, Lee H-N, Chen Y-T, Hsu K-J. Locating the Mandibular Lingula Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Literature Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(3):881. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030881

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Chun-Ming, Hui-Na Lee, Ying-Ting Chen, and Kun-Jung Hsu. 2023. "Locating the Mandibular Lingula Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Literature Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 3: 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030881

APA Style

Chen, C. -M., Lee, H. -N., Chen, Y. -T., & Hsu, K. -J. (2023). Locating the Mandibular Lingula Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Literature Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(3), 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030881

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop