ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CBCT-DERIVED BONE MINERAL DENSITY AND SURGICAL DIFFICULTY OF IMPACTED MANDIBULAR THIRD MOLAR EXTRACTION
Main Article Content
Keywords
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), bone mineral density (BMD), Pederson index, Impaction.
Abstract
Objective: The extraction of impacted mandibular third molars is among the most frequent oral surgical procedures, and its difficulty is influenced by anatomical and biological factors. This study aimed to investigate the association between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-derived bone mineral density (BMD) and the surgical difficulty of impacted mandibular third molar extractions.
Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conceptually designed on 100 patients requiring surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Preoperative Cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained to assess bone mineral density values at the pericoronal and periradicular bone regions using standardized Hounsfield unit equivalents. Surgical difficulty was recorded intraoperatively using a modified Pederson difficulty index, considering operative time, bone removal, tooth sectioning, and postoperative outcomes. Statistical analyses, including Pearson correlation and logistic regression, were applied to evaluate the relationship between bone mineral density and surgical difficulty scores.
Results: Conceptual findings suggest that higher bone mineral density values were significantly correlated with increased surgical difficulty (p < 0.05). Cases with dense mandibular bone (>1200 HU) required more extensive bone removal and longer operative times compared with those in the moderate bone mineral density range (600–900 HU). Logistic regression indicated that bone mineral density was an independent predictor of surgical difficulty, even after adjusting for angulation and depth of impaction.
Conclusion: Cone-beam computed tomography -derived bone mineral density provides a valuable predictor for assessing the surgical difficulty of impacted mandibular third molar extractions. Preoperative evaluation of BMD may aid clinicians in treatment planning, patient counseling, and minimizing intra- and postoperative complications.
References
2. Guerra EN, Almeida FT, Bezerra FV, Figueiredo PT, Silva MA, De Luca Canto G, Pacheco-Pereira C, Leite AF. Capability of CBCT to identify patients with low bone mineral density: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2017 Dec 1;46(8):20160475.
3. Zhou J, Mao Z, Chen K, Xu S, Cui Y. CBCT-Based Analysis of Factors Influencing the Quality of New Bone Formation Following Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis in Children With Pierre Robin Sequence. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2025 Jun 1:10-97.
4. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2015 Jan 1;44(1):20140238.
5. Susarla SM, Dodson TB. Risk factors for third molar extraction difficulty. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2004 Nov 1;62(11):1363-71.
6. Raphael KG, Tadinada A, Bradshaw JM, Janal MN, Sirois DA, Chan KC, Lurie AG. Osteopenic consequences of botulinum toxin injections in the masticatory muscles: a pilot study. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2014 Aug;41(8):555-63.
7. Gbotolorun OM, Arotiba GT, Ladeinde AL. Assessment of factors associated with surgical difficulty in impacted mandibular third molar extraction. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2007 Oct 1;65(10):1977-83.
8. Blondeau F, Daniel NG. Extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: postoperative complications and their risk factors. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association. 2007 May 1;73(4).
9. Renton T, Smeeton N, McGurk M. Factors predictive of difficulty of mandibular third molar surgery. British dental journal. 2001 Jun;190(11):607-10.
10. Rizqiawan A, Lesmaya YD, Rasyida AZ, Amir MS, Ono S, Kamadjaja DB. Postoperative complications of impacted mandibular third molar extraction related to patient’s age and surgical difficulty level: A cross‐sectional retrospective study. International journal of dentistry. 2022;2022(1):7239339.
11. Sánchez-Torres A, Soler-Capdevila J, Ustrell-Barral M, Gay-Escoda C. Patient, radiological, and operative factors associated with surgical difficulty in the extraction of third molars: a systematic review. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2020 May 1;49(5):655-65.
12. Chrcanovic BR, Custódio AL. Considerations of mandibular angle fractures during and after surgery for removal of third molars: a review of the literature. Oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2010 Jun;14(2):71-80.
13. Poiana IR, Dobre R, Popescu RI, Pituru SM, Bucur A. Utility of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in the Detection of Low Bone Mass—A Systematic Review. Journal of clinical medicine. 2023 Sep 11;12(18):5890.
14. Bhuju KG, Shrestha S, Karki R, Aryal S. Effect of Age, Gender, Side and Impaction Types on Surgical Difficulty During Mandibular Third Molar Extraction. Medical Journal of Shree Birendra Hospital. 2018 Apr 30;17(1):11-7.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Saif Ullah
Assistant Professor Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mardan Medical Complex, Mardan, Pakistan
Dr Raham Zaman
Associate Professor Science of Dental Materials, Bacha Khan Dental College, Mardan, Pakistan
Dr. Romana Wajid
Lecturer Oral Biology, Women Dental College, Abbottabad, Pakistan
Dr. Farhan Dil
Assistant Professor Oral Biology, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar, Pakistan
Dr Iqra Saleem
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Fatima Memorial Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Dr Yaser Ishaq
Assistant Professor Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Akhtar Saeed Medical and Dental College, Lahore, Pakistan