Purpose: This study was performed to investigate mandibular canal displacement in patients with ameloblastoma using a 3-dimensional mirrored-model analysis. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of computed tomographic scans of patients with ameloblastoma (n=10) and healthy controls (n=20). The amount of mandibular canal asymmetry was recorded as a continuous variable, while the buccolingual (yaw) and supero-inferior (pitch) directions of displacement were classified as categorical variables. The t-test for independent samples and the Fisher exact test were used to compare groups in terms of differences between sides and the presence of asymmetric inclinations, respectively (P<0.05). Results: The length of the mandibular canal was similar on both sides in both groups. The ameloblastoma group presented more lateral (2.40±4.16 mm) and inferior (−1.97±1.92 mm) positions of the mental foramen, and a more buccal (1.09±2.75 mm) position of the middle canal point on the lesion side. Displacement of the mandibular canal tended to be found in the anterior region in patients with ameloblastoma, occurring toward the buccal and inferior directions in 60% and 70% of ameloblastoma patients, respectively. Conclusion Mandibular canal displacement due to ameloblastoma could be detected by this superimposed mirrored method, and displacement was more prevalent toward the inferior and buccal directions. This displacement affected the mental foramen position, but did not lead to a change in the length of the mandibular canal. The control group presented no mandibular canal displacement.

Purpose: This study evaluated the influence of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool in a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) device on the diagnosis of vertical root fractures (VRFs) in teeth with different root filling materials. Materials and Methods: Forty-five extracted human premolars were classified into three subgroups; 1) no filling; 2) gutta-percha; and 3) metallic post. CBCT images were acquired using an Orthopantomograph 300 unit with and without a MAR tool. Subsequently, the same teeth were fractured, and new CBCT scans were obtained with and without MAR. Two oral radiologists evaluated the images regarding the presence or absence of VRF. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and diagnostic tests were performed. Results: The overall area under the curve values were 0.695 for CBCT with MAR and 0.789 for CBCT without MAR. The MAR tool negatively influenced the overall diagnosis of VRFs in all tested subgroups, with lower accuracy (0.45–0.72), sensitivity (0.6–0.67), and specificity (0.23–0.8) than were found for the images without MAR. In the latter group, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity values were 0.68–0.77, 0.67–083, and 0.53–087, respectively. However, no significant difference was found between images with and without MAR for the no filling and gutta-percha subgroups (P>0.05). In the metallic post subgroup, CBCT showed a significant difference according to MAR use (P<0.05). Conclusion The OP 300 MAR tool negatively influenced the detection of VRFs in teeth with no root canal filling, gutta-percha, or metallic posts. Teeth with metallic posts suffered the most from the negative impact of MAR.