English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Selecting either buccal or lingual approach for the mandibular third molar surgical extraction has been an intense debate for years. The aim of this observational retrospective study was to classify the molar based on the proximity to the external cortical bone, and analyze the position of inferior alveolar canal (IAC) of each type. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) data of 110 deeply impacted mandibular third molars from 91 consecutive patients were analyzed. A new classification based on the mean deduction value (MD) of buccal-lingual alveolar bone thickness was proposed: MD≥1 mm was classified as buccal position, 1 mm>MD>−1 mm was classified as central position, MD≤−1 mm was classified as lingual position. The study samples were distributed as: buccal position (1.8%) in 2 subjects, central position (10.9%) in 12 and lingual position (87.3%) in 96. Ninety-six molars (87.3%) contacted the IAC. The buccal and inferior IAC course were the most common types in impacted third molar, especially in lingually positioned ones. Our study suggested that amongst deeply impacted mandibular third molars, lingual position occupies the largest proportion, followed by the central, and then the buccal type.

Variations in the buccal-lingual alveolar bone thickness of impacted mandibular third molar: our classification and treatment perspectives