Can the Inversion Filter Improve the Visibility of the Mandibular Incisive Canal?

Farida Abesi; Nima Nikafshar; Sina Haghanifar; Soraya Khafri; Mahtab Hamzeh

doi:10.5812/iranjradiol.22698

Can the Inversion Filter Improve the Visibility of the Mandibular Incisive Canal?

Farida Abesi ¹ , Nima Nikafshar ² , Sina Haghanifar ^{3
, *} , Soraya Khafri ⁴ and Mahtab Hamzeh ⁵

Authors Information

¹ Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran

² Student Research Committee, Dental Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran

³ Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran

⁴ Social Medical and Health Department, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran

⁵ Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran

Article information

Iranian Journal of Radiology: January 01, 2016, 13 (1); e22698
Published Online: January 12, 2016
Article Type: Research Article
Received: August 13, 2014
Revised: June 25, 2015
Accepted: July 5, 2015
DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.22698

To Cite: Abesi F, Nikafshar N, Haghanifar S, Khafri S, Hamzeh M. Can the Inversion Filter Improve the Visibility of the Mandibular Incisive Canal?, Iran J Radiol. 2016 ; 13(1):e22698. doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.22698.

Abstract

Patients and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 2580 digital panoramic images of 18 to 70-year-old patients were inspected for presence of MIC. Visibility of MIC and extension of the canal were registered separately on each side using IF and conventional mode. Data were analyzed by Kappa test using SPSS version 20 software. A probability value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Copyright © 2016, Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Iranian Society of Radiology. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Background

Panoramic images are the most useful radiographs in dentistry that can be used for diagnostic procedures requiring broad coverage of the jaw such as overall evaluation of dentition, maxillofacial trauma and evaluation of the position of impacted teeth.

Nowadays, many surgeries are performed in the anterior part of the mandible (inter-mental area) including dental implants, orthognathic surgeries, and screw fixation. The mandibular inter-mental area is assumed to be safe for these procedures. The problem is the presence of mandibular incisive canal (MIC). The inferior alveolar nerve may extend beyond the mental foramen as an intraosseous anterior loop. The mandibular canal contains the inferior alveolar nerve and blood vessels. It is divided into mental and incisive branches. The incisive branch has a radiographic view in some cases (1).

Studies have shown that panoramic radiography has an almost limited value in positioning these landmarks and the reported cases are variable (2.7 - 50%) (2-7). On the other hand, more advanced radiographies such as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) show the mandibular canal in 78 to 94 percent of cases (5, 6, 8-10). Using digital panoramic radiographies and software features, some manipulations can be performed on the images to make them useful for diagnosis of the landmarks.

Several manipulation tools are used in digital radiography one of which is inversion filter (IF). It inverts the image gray scale, changing the pixels of low value (dark) to high value (bright) and vice versa (11). Previous studies about application of IF did not demonstrate clear results. Optical contrast adjustment is reported to be better when a dark object is seen on a black background (12). According to Paul et al. application of IF enhanced the contours and made the image more easily recognizable by the human visual system (13). In addition, IF provides a negative image and sometimes reveals pathologies that mental area on panoramic radiographs in conventional mode (3, 4, 8, 9, 14), but so far there is no study about the effect of IF on the visibility of MIC.

2. Objectives

3. Patients and Methods

4. Results

Among 2580 digital panoramic radiographs including 1078 males (41.78%) and 1502 females (58.22%), MIC was visible in 827 (32.1%) cases (331 unilateral, 462 bilateral and 34 in midline, collectively equal to 1289 canals) using IF and 820 (31.8%) cases (347 unilateral, 439 bilateral and 34 in midline, collectively equal to 1259 canals) in conventional mode. Mc Nemar showed no significant difference between the two methods (P > 0.05).

Generally, there was no significant difference in the average extension rate of unilateral and bilateral canals using IF and conventional mode (P > 0.05). Table 1 shows the frequency of the extension rate of MIC using IF and conventional mode.

Table 1. Frequency of Extension Rate of MIC Using IF and Conventional Mode^a

Extension rate	Tool
Extension rate	Conventional Mode	IF
0	34 (2.7)	34 (2.6)
1	45 (3.6)	51 (4.0)
2	306 (24.3)	335 (26.0)
3	874 (69.4)	869 (67.4)

^aValues are presented as No. (%).

5. Discussion

Till date, it is not clear whether software application can enhance the diagnostic value of digital imaging. Because of diversity of enhancement modalities, studies assessing their clinical applications are frequently performed. In the present study, visibility and extension rate of mandibular incisive canal using IF and conventional mode were investigated and MIC was visible in 32% of the cases that is in agreement with a study conducted by Raitz et al. (6). In a study performed by Jacobs et al. MIC was visible in only 15% of the panoramic radiographs (8).

Higher visibility of MIC in the present study may be because of the difference in the system of radiography and also racial differences between the studied populations. Again, the study population is lower (about half) than the current study. Another probable reason may be due to the analogue system used in the study carried out by Romano et al. (4) in which no kind of manipulation is possible.

Visibility of MIC in CT scans and CBCT images was reported in the range of 78 to 94.4 percent (5, 6, 8-10). Due to the limitations of panoramic images in showing the anterior region of the mandible and because the panoramic view shows a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional subject, lower visibility of MIC in the present study can be justified.

Comparing IF and conventional mode, there was no significant difference in the visibility of MIC. This insignificance can be partly attributed to the skilled eyes of the expert observers who were able to detect MIC even in the conventional mode. Visibility of bilateral canals and the extension rate of the canal were slightly higher in IF. This can imply the better optical contrast caused by IF which could be significant if non-professional observers performed the investigation.

Previous studies have used IF in different diagnostic procedures. Kal et al. have shown that using IF cannot increase the accuracy of determination of tooth length (15). Kamburoglu et al. concluded that IF does not help in the diagnosis of vertical root fracture (16). According to Haak et al. IF cannot reveal additional information in the diagnosis of interproximal dental caries (17).

Collectively, according to the results of present and previous studies, IF cannot enhance the diagnostic quality of panoramic radiographs and in case accurate determination of canal position is necessary, CBCT images are recommended.

Acknowledgements

Footnotes

Authors’ Contribution: Study concept and design: Farida Abesi; acquisition of data: Nima Nikafshar; analysis and interpretation of data: Nima Nikafshar; drafting of the manuscript: Nima Nikafshar, and Mahtab Hamzeh; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Nima Nikafshar, and Mahtab Hamzeh; statistical analysis: Soraya Khafri; administrative, technical, and material support: Sina Haghanifar; study supervision: Farida Abesi

Financial Disclosure: None declared.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by Babol University of Medical Sciences.

References

1. Greenstein G, Tarnow D. The mental foramen and nerve: clinical and anatomical factors related to dental implant placement: a literature review. J Periodontol. 2006; 77(12): 1933-43[DOI][PubMed]
2. Preeti C, Arshdeep K, Balwinder S, Ramandeep S, Adesh S, Aman A. A study of the anterior loop and the mandibular incisive canal on panoramic radiographs. Ind J Compr Dent Care. 2013; 3(1): 316-20
3. Shahidi S, Zamiri B, Roosta S, Haghnegahdar A. Mandibular Incisive Canal in Panoramic View. J Dent, Shiraz Univ Medic Sci. 2008; 8(4): 66-75
4. Romanos GE, Papadimitriou DE, Royer K, Stefanova-Stephens N, Salwan R, Malmstrom H, et al. The presence of the mandibular incisive canal: a panoramic radiographic examination. Implant Dent. 2012; 21(3): 202-6[DOI][PubMed]
5. Sahman H, Sekerci AE, Sisman Y, Payveren M. Assessment of the visibility and characteristics of the mandibular incisive canal: cone beam computed tomography versus panoramic radiography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(1): 71-8[DOI][PubMed]
6. Raitz R, Shimura E, Chilvarquer I, Fenyo-Pereira M. Assessment of the mandibular incisive canal by panoramic radiograph and cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Dent. 2014; 2014: 187085[DOI][PubMed]
7. Cantekin K, Sekerci AE, Miloglu O, Buyuk SK. Identification of the mandibular landmarks in a pediatric population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014; 19(2)-41[PubMed]
8. Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, vanSteenberghe D, Gijbels F, Quirynen M. Appearance, location, course, and morphology of the mandibular incisive canal: an assessment on spiral CT scan. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002; 31(5): 322-7[DOI][PubMed]
9. Uchida Y, Noguchi N, Goto M, Yamashita Y, Hanihara T, Takamori H, et al. Measurement of anterior loop length for the mandibular canal and diameter of the mandibular incisive canal to avoid nerve damage when installing endosseous implants in the interforaminal region: a second attempt introducing cone beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67(4): 744-50[DOI][PubMed]
10. Huang H, Liu P, Li X, Pei Z, Yang X, Bai S, et al. [Mandibular incisive canal by cone beam CT]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2013; 31(5): 479-82[PubMed]
11. Raitz R, Assuncao Junior JN, Fenyo-Pereira M, Correa L, de Lima LP. Assessment of using digital manipulation tools for diagnosing mandibular radiolucent lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41(3): 203-10[DOI][PubMed]
12. Blackwell HR. Contrast thresholds of the human eye. J Opt Soc Am. 1946; 36(11): 624-43[PubMed]
13. van der Stelt PF. Filmless imaging: the uses of digital radiography in dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136(10): 1379-87[PubMed]
14. Oliveira ML, Vieira ML, Cruz AD, Boscolo FN, Almeida SMD. Gray scale inversion in digital image for measurement of tooth length. Braz Dent J. 2012; 23(6): 703-6[PubMed]
15. Kal BI, Baksi BG, Dundar N, Sen BH. Effect of various digital processing algorithms on the measurement accuracy of endodontic file length. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 103(2): 280-4[DOI][PubMed]
16. Kamburoglu K, Murat S, Pehlivan SY. The effects of digital image enhancement on the detection of vertical root fracture. Dent Traumatol. 2010; 26(1): 47-51[DOI][PubMed]
17. Haak R, Wicht MJ. Grey-scale reversed radiographic display in the detection of approximal caries. J Dent. 2005; 33(1): 65-71[DOI][PubMed]

Iranian Journal of Radiology

Published by: Kowsar

Can the Inversion Filter Improve the Visibility of the Mandibular Incisive Canal?

Article information

Abstract

1. Background

2. Objectives

3. Patients and Methods

4. Results

5. Discussion

Acknowledgements

Footnotes

References

Readers' Comments

Iranian Journal of Radiology

Published by: Kowsar

Can the Inversion Filter Improve the Visibility of the Mandibular Incisive Canal?

Article information

Abstract

1. Background

2. Objectives

3. Patients and Methods

4. Results

5. Discussion

Acknowledgements

Footnotes

References

Share on:

Readers' Comments:

Readers' Comments