Imaging study on relationship between the location of lingula and the Gonial angle in a Chinese population

  • Keke Zhao
  • Bo Zhang
  • Yunwen Hou
  • Limin Miao
  • Ruixia Wang
  • Hua YuanEmail author
Original Article



The purpose of this study was to investigate the Gonial angle in relation to the position of the lingula using computerized image analysis to guide the oral surgeons to prevent injury to the inferior alveolar nerve and peripheral blood vessels during surgery.


We measured Gonial angle sizes of bilateral rami and the distances from the lingula tip to the mandibular notch (LN), the anterior (LA) and posterior (LP) margin of the mandibular ramus, the mandibular base (LB) and the occlusive plane (h) in 407 Chinese adults with CBCT.


In males, the mean distance of LN was 17.64 mm in the low Gonial angle group while 16.76 mm in the high Gonial angle group, which was significantly different between two groups (P < 0.001). The distance of LA in LGA group was obviously longer than that in HGA group (P < 0.001). The mean distance LP of men was 17.94 mm in LGA group while 16.9 mm in HGA group (P < 0.001). In females, the mean distance of LB in LGA group was 33.32 mm and 32.37 mm in HGA group (P < 0.01).


We discovered that the segment of the mandibular branch, between the mandibular lingula and the mandibular angle, was obviously smaller in the HGA group than that in the LGA group.


Lingula Gonial angle Cone-beam computed tomography Mandibular ramus Mandibular plane angle 



This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (81672678), A Project Funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD, 2018-87), The Project of Invigorating Health Care through Science, Technology and Education (Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent QNRC2016852) and sponsored by Qing Lan Project.

Author contributions

KZ and YH carried out the experiments and drafted the manuscript; LM and BZ collected data, analyzed and interpreted the results; BZ and RW were involved in the statistical analysis; RW and HY critically reviewed the manuscript; HY managed the experimental design, reviewed the manuscript and provided funding support. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Abu Alhaija ES, Albhairan HM, Alkhateeb SN (2011) Mandibular third molar space in different antero-posterior skeletal patterns. Eur J Orthod 33:570–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acebal-Bianco F, Vuylsteke PL, Mommaerts MY, De Clercq CA (2000) Perioperative complications in corrective facial orthopedic surgery: a 5-year retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:754–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anbiaee N, Eslami F, Bagherpour A (2015) Relationship of the gonial angle and inferior alveolar canal course using cone beam computed tomography. J Dent 12:756–763Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhardwaj D, Kumar JS, Mohan V (2014) Radiographic evaluation of mandible to predict the gender and age. J Clin Diagn Res 8:66–69Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Devi R, Arna N, Manjunath KY, Balasubramanyam (2003) Incidence of morphological variants of mandibular lingula. Indian J Dent Res 14:210–213Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huumonen S, Sipilä K, Haikola B, Tapio M, Söderholm AL, Remeslyly T, Oikarinen K, Raustia AM (2010) Influence of edentulousness on gonial angle, ramus and condylar height. J Oral Rehabil 37:34–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansisyanont P, Apinhasmit W, Chompoopong S (2010) Shape, height, and location of the lingula for sagittal ramus osteotomy in Thais. Clin Anat 22:787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jian-Ying A, Yu-Feng A, Yang L, Huang H, Chen Y, Zuo C (2017) Application of mandibular angle localizer in arc osteotomy of the mandible. Chin J Aesthet Plast Surg 28:454–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kositbowornchai S, Siritapetawee M, Damrongrungruang T, Khongkankong W, Chatrchaiwiwatana S, Khamanarong K, Chanthaooplee T (2007) Shape of the lingula and its localization by panoramic radiograph versus dry mandibular measurement. Surg Radiol Anat 29:689–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li Y, Gao Y, Xu X, Shi R, Liu J, Yao W, Ke C (2017) Slit2/Robo1 promotes synaptogenesis and functional recovery of spinal cord injury. Neuroreport 28:75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Monnazzi MS, Passeri LA, Gabrielli MF, Bolini PD, de Carvalho WR, da Costa Machado H (2012) 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 41:74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muto T, Shigeo K, Yamamoto K, Kawakami J (2003) Computed tomography morphology of the mandibular ramus in prognathism: effect on the medial osteotomy of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ogawa T, Osato S, Shishido Y, Okada M, Misaki K (2012) Relationships between the gonial angle and mandibular ramus morphology in dentate subjects: a panoramic radiophotometric study. J Oral Implantol 38:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pirgousis P, Brown D, Fernandes R (2013) Digital measurements of 120 mandibular angles to determine the ideal fibula wedge osteotomy to re-create the mandibular angle for microvascular reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:2169–2175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ribeiro DP, Gandelmann IH, Medeiros PJ (2006) Comparison of mandibular rami width in patients with prognathism and retrognathia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1506–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sekerci AE, Sisman Y (2014) Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of the shape, height, and location of the mandibular lingula. Surg Radiol Anat 36:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith BR, Rajchel JL, Waite DE, Read L (1991) Mandibular ramus anatomy as it relates to the medial osteotomy of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49:112–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Song JM, Kim YD (2014) Three-dimensional evaluation of lingual split line after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy in asymmetric prognathism. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsai HH (2002) Panoramic radiographic findings of the mandibular foramen from deciduous to early permanent dentition. J Clin Pediatr Dent 28:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tuli A, Choudhry R, Choudhry S, Raheja S, Agarwal S (2000) Variation in shape of the lingula in the adult human mandible. J Anat 197:313–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang Y (2004) Intraoral approach for surgical treatment of mandibular cyst in the angle and ramus. J Pract Stomatol 20:740–742Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhou C, Jeon TH, Jun SH, Kwon JJ (2017) Evaluation of mandibular lingula and foramen location using 3-dimensional mandible models reconstructed by cone-beam computed tomography. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 39:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral DiseasesNanjing Medical UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of StomatologyNanjing Medical UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations