Morphometric and morphological evaluation of mastoid emissary canal using cone-beam computed tomography

Temiz M., Ozen D. C., DUMAN Ş. B., BAYRAKDAR İ. Ş., KAZAN O., Jagtap R., ...Daha Fazla

Science Progress, cilt.106, sa.2, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 106 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1177/00368504231178382
  • Dergi Adı: Science Progress
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Aerospace Database, Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA), Communication Abstracts, EMBASE, Food Science & Technology Abstracts, INSPEC, MEDLINE, Metadex, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: cone-beam computed tomography, Cranial emissary foramen, dentistry, mastoid emissary canal, oral and maxillofacial radiology
  • Gazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objectives: This study aimed to determine mastoid emissary canal’s (MEC) and mastoid foramen (MF) prevalence and morphometric characteristics on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images to underline its clinical significance and discuss its surgical consequences. Methods: In the retrospective analysis, two oral and maxillofacial radiologists analyzed the CBCT images of 135 patients (270 sides). The biggest MF and MEC were measured in the images evaluated in MultiPlanar Reconstruction (MPR) views. The MF and MEC mean diameters were calculated. The mastoid foramina number was recorded. The prevalence of MF was studied according to gender and side of the patient. Results: The overall prevalence of MEC and MF was 119 (88.1%). The prevalence of MEC and MF is 55.5% in females and 44.5% in males. MEC and MF were identified as bilateral in 80 patients (67.20%) and unilateral in 39 patients (32.80%). The mean diameter of MF was 2.4 ± 0.9 mm. The mean height of MF was 2.3 ± 0.9. The mean diameter of the MEC was 2.1 ± 0.8, and the mean height of the MEC was 2.1 ± 0.8. There is a statistical difference between the genders (p = 0.043) in foramen diameter. Males had a significantly larger mean diameter of MF in comparison to females. Conclusion: MEC and MF must be evaluated thoroughly if the surgery is contemplated. Radiologists and surgeons should be aware of mastoid emissary canal morphology, variations, clinical relevance, and surgical consequences while operating in the suboccipital and mastoid areas to avoid unexpected and catastrophic complications. CBCT may be a reliable imaging diagnostic technique.