Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 242–247 | Cite as

Role of Panoramic Imaging and Cone Beam CT for Assessment of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Exposure and Subsequent Paresthesia Following Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar

  • Sonali Ghai
  • Sankarsan Choudhury
Original Article



Pre-operative radiographic evaluation of impacted mandibular third molar and inferior alveolar canal (IAC) is important in preventing a possible nerve exposure and damage during surgical removal. The present study analysed the relation of the mandibular third molar with inferior alveolar canal using panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone beam CT (CBCT) and evaluated the radiographic features suggestive of IAN exposure and post-operative paresthesia.

Materials and Methods

PAN and CBCT findings of 53 impacted mandibular third molars having a close relation with IAC undergoing extraction were analysed. Further, all cases were evaluated for any sensory loss in relation to IAN 1 week post-operatively.


The most common PAN feature was combination of darkening of roots (DR) and interruption of white line (IWL), seen in 35.86% (19) cases. The most common CBCT feature was thinning of lingual cortex in 81.14% (43) cases. The most common location of IAC in CBCT was inferior in 47.16% (25) cases, followed by buccal 26.41% (14). On comparison of PAN and CBCT findings, DR and IWL both exclusively 92.86% (13); 80% (12) cases and in combination 75% (15) were most commonly associated with thinning of lingual cortex. IAN exposure was seen in 7.55% (4) cases, and 3.77% (2) cases reported with paresthesia. Absence of corticalisation and IWL was associated with all cases of nerve exposure, inter-radicular location of IAC seen in three out of the four cases. Cases with paresthesia had DR and deflection of roots (DEFR) with thinning of lingual cortex by roots.


DR with DEFR or IWL in PAN as combination and inter-radicular location of IAC with thinning of lingual cortex by root tips in CBCT are highly predictive of nerve exposure and subsequent paresthesia.


Cone beam computed tomography Panoramic radiography Impacted mandibular third molars IAN exposure IAN paresthesia 


  1. 1.
    Padhye MN, Dabir AV, Girotra CS, Pandhi VH (2013) Pattern of mandibular third molar impaction in the Indian population: a retrospective clinico-radiographic survey. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith WP (2013) The relative risk of neurosensory deficit following removal of mandibular third molar teeth: the influence of radiography and surgical technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 115:18–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tay AB, Go WS (2004) Effect of exposed inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle during surgical removal of impacted lower third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62:592–600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harada N, Vasudeva SB, Joshi R, Seki K, Araki K, Matsuda Y et al (2013) Correlation between panoramic radiographic signs and high risk anatomical factors for impacted mandibular third molars. Oral Surg 6:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel S (2009) New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 2 cone beam computed tomography. Int Endod J 42:463–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rood JP, Shehab BA (1990) The radiological prediction of inferior alveolar nerve injury during third molar surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 28:20–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalili Z, Mahjoub P, Sigaroudi AK (2011) Comparison between cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in the assessment of the relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted class C mandibular third molars. Dent Res J 8:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sharma R, Srivastava A, Chandramala R (2012) Nerve injuries related to mandibular third molar extractions. e-J Dent 2(2):146–152Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheung LK, Leung YY, Chow LK, Wong MCM, Chan EKK, Fok YH (2010) Incidence of neurosensory deficits and recovery after lower third molar surgery: a prospective clinical study of 4338 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39:320–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tantanapornkul W, Okouchi K, Fujiwara Y, Yamashiro Y, Maruoka Y, Ohbayashi N et al (2007) A comparative study of cone beam computed tomography and conventional panoramic radiography in assessing the topographic relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:253–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atieh MA (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of panoramic radiography in determining relationship between inferior alveolar nerve and mandibular third molar. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:74–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sedaghatfar M, August MA, Dodson TB (2005) Panoramic radiographic findings as predictors of inferior alveolar nerve exposure following third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:3–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xu GZ, Yang C, Fan XD, Yu CQ, Cai XY, Wang Y et al (2013) Anatomic relationship between impacted third mandibular molar and the mandibular canal as the risk factor of inferior alveolar nerve injury. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caravalho WR, Devos Vasconocelos BC (2011) Assessment of factors associated with surgical difficulty during removal of impacted lower third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:2714–2721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jung YH, Nah KS, Cho BH (2012) Correlation of panoramic radiographs and cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of a superimposed relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted third molars. Imaging Sci Dent 42:121–127CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tantanapornkul W, Okochi K, Bhakdinaronk A, Ohbayashi N, Kurabayashi T (2009) Correlation of darkening of impacted mandibular third molar root on digital panoramic images with cone beam computed tomography findings. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neves FS, Souza TC, Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F, Freitas DQ, Bóscolo FN (2012) 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 41:553–557CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Selvi F, Dodson TB, Nattestad A, Robertson K, Tolstunov L (2013) Factors that are associated with injury to the inferior alveolar nerve in high risk patients, after removal of third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:868–873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG (2008) What is cone beam CT and how does it work. Dent Clin N Am 52:707–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yamaoka M, Furusawa K, Yamamoto M, Tanaka H, Horiguchi F (1995) Radiographic study of bone loss of mandibular lingual cortical plate accompanied by third molar development. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 80:650–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Valmaseda-Castellon E, Berini-Aytes L, Gay-Escoda C (2001) Inferior alveolar nerve damage after lower third molar surgical extraction: a prospective study of 1117 surgical extractions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 92:377–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Apollo ClinicsKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Pioneer ScansKolkataIndia
  3. 3.ISPAT Cooperative HospitalSonarpurIndia
  4. 4.Narayana Hrudayalaya Surgical CentreKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations