Sexual dimorphism in the incisive canal in humans: A literature review.
Abstract
Abstract: Aim: To describe the morphometric characteristics of the maxillary incisor canal (IC) in human beings by gender. Material and method. Descriptive study. A systematic search for articles related to anatomical and topographical variations of the IC by sex and published in the last ten years was performed in the Medline database. Selected publications presented the following criteria: Number of samples and average values, in millimeters (mm), for length, diameter and distance from the IC to the maxillary central incisors (ICM). In addition, author and year of publication were considered. Data were presented using descriptive statistics. Results. Three studies were selected. In men, IC average dimensions were higher in diameter (2,79±0,94 mm v/s 2,43±0,85 mm), length (11,96±2,73 mm v/s 10,39±2,47 mm) and distance from the apex and middle third of the root of the MCI than in women. Conclusion. IC morphometric values were higher in men. It is important to keep in mind IC dimensions vary according to gender when planning surgeries and rehabilitations in this area of the oral cavity.
Keywords: incisive canal, nasopalatine canal, "Maxilla"[Mesh], "Sex Characteristics"[Mesh], "Anatomy"[Mesh].
Dimorfismo sexual del Canal Incisivo en cráneos humanos: Revisión de la literatura.
Resumen: Objetivo. Describir las características morfométricas del canal incisivo del maxilar (CI) según el género en humanos. Material y método. Estudio descriptivo. Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática en la base de datos de MEDLINE, sobre artículos relacionados con las variaciones anatómicas y topográficas del CI entre géneros. Se registró autor, año de publicación, cantidad de muestras y valores promedios en milímetros de la longitud, diámetro y distancia del CI con respecto a los incisivos centrales del maxilar (ICM). Resultados. Se analizaron 3 Artículos. Las dimensiones promedio del CI fueron mayores en los hombres que en las mujeres tanto en el diámetro (2.79±0.94 mm v/s 2.43±0.85 mm ), longitud (11.96±2.73 mm v/s 10.39±2.47 mm) y distancia con el ápice y punto medio de la raíz de los ICM. Conclusión. Las características morfométricas del CI fueron mayores en hombres. Se debe tener en cuenta que las dimensiones del CI varían dependiendo del sexo para la planificación de cirugías y rehabilitación en este sector de la cavidad oral.
Palabras clave: nasopalatine canal, sexual dimorphism, humans.
References
2. Dauber W. Feneis nomenclatura anatómica ilustrada. 5ta Edicion.Barceona: Editorial Masson S.A.; 2005.
3. Tolstunov L. Implant zones of the jaws: implant location and related success rate. J Oral Implantol. 2007; 33(4): 211-20.
4. Daley TD, Wysocki GP, Pringle GA. Relative incidence of odontogenic tumors and oral and jaw cysts in a Canadian population. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994 ;77(3): 276-80.
5. Peñarrocha D, Candel E, Calvo-Guirado JL, Canullo L, Peñarrocha M. Implants placed in the nasopalatine canal to rehabilitate severely atrophic maxillae: a retrospective study with long follow-up. J Oral Implantol. 2013 [Epub ahead of print].
6. Liang X, Jacobs R, Martens W, Hu Y, Adriaensens P, Quirynen M, Lambrichts I. Macro- and micro-anatomical, histological and computed tomography scan characterization of the nasopalatine canal. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36(7): 598-603.
7. Chandler NP, Gray A. Patent nasopalatine ducts: a case report. N Z Dent J. 1996; 92(409): 80-2.
8. Jacob S, Zelano B, Gungor A, Abbott D, Naclerio R, McClintock MK. Location and gross morphology of the nasopalatine duct in human adults. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000; 126(6): 741-8.
9. Moss HD, Hellstein JW, Johnson JD. Endodontic considerations of the nasopalatine duct region. J Endod. 2000; 26(2): 107-10.
10. Güncü GN, Yıldırım YD, Yılmaz HG, Galindo-Moreno P, Velasco-Torres M, Al-Hezaimi K, Al-Shawaf R, Karabulut E, Wang HL, Tözüm TF. Is there a gender difference in anatomic features of incisive canal and maxillary environmental bone? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24(9): 1023-6.
11. Iordanishvili AK. Age-related characteristics and sex differences in the anatomical structure of the incisive canal. Stomatologiia (Mosk). 1991; (4): 25-7.
12. Güler AU, Sumer M, Sumer P, Biçer I. The evaluation of vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular bones and the location of anatomic landmarks in panoramic radiographs of edentulous patients for implant dentistry. J Oral Rehabil. 2005; 32(10): 741-6.
13. Chatriyanuyoke P, Lu CI, Suzuki Y, Lozada JL, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY, Goodacre CJ. Nasopalatine canal position relative to the maxillary central incisors: a cone beam computed tomography assessment. J Oral Implantol. 2012; 38(6): 713-7.
14. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A Jr, Tartaglia G. Mathematical definition of the shape of dental arches in human permanent healthy dentitions. Eur J Orthod. 1994; 16(4): 287-94.
15. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Chapter 8 (Assessing risk of bias in included studies) was updated for Version 5.1.0. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. © 2024.
