Skip to main content
Download PDF

Determining the position of the lingula and the mandibular foramen using the antilingula in orthognathic surgery

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 499 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The antilingula located on the lateral surface of the mandibular ramus has been served as a surgical landmark for the mandibular foramen on the medial surface for decades. However, whether the antilingula truly represents the lingula which is the bony prominence overlapping the mandibular foramen, or the foramen itself, is still unclear. This study thus aimed to examine the position of the antilingula in relation to three reference points: the lingula, the anterior and the posterior borders of the mandibular foramen, as well as to the reference plane used in the inferior alveolar nerve block, and to the posterior border of the mandible.

Methods

This observational study was performed in 113 Thai dry mandibles. The antilingula were identified followed by transferring the reference points to the lateral surface. The distances from the antilingula to the reference points, the reference plane and the posterior border of the ramus were then measured. Chi-square test was calculated for side-dependency of the antilingula. Paired t-test was calculated for difference in measurements in left and right sides.

Results

The antilingula could be identified in 92.48% of the mandibles with 86.67 – 90.00% accuracy and 86.67% reliability. There was no significant difference in the presence of the antilingula on left and right sides (p = 0.801). Only 2.5% and 0.83% of the antilingula correspond to the lingula and the anterior border of the mandibular foramen, respectively. However, 85% of the reference points were located within 11 mm radius. The antilingula was found located 2.80 mm inferior to the reference plane and 16.84 mm from the posterior border of the ramus.

Conclusions

The antilingula does not concur with the reference points on the medial surface. Our study also suggests that the safe area for vertical osteotomy is 11 mm posterior to the antilingula or at 30% of the length from the posterior border parallel to the occlusal plane. The use of more accurate techniques in localizing the mandibular foramen combined with the antilingula is more recommended than using the antilingula as a sole surgical guide.

Peer Review reports

Background

Correction of mandibular deformities may involve orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery, or either one, depending on the patient’s consent and the doctor’s expertise. The modern mandibular osteotomy was first described in 1942 by Schuchardt [1] and has been continuously modified by several groups of surgeons to establish the safer procedures with less complications [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Currently, the common surgical techniques for splitting and repositioning a segment of the mandible are bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) and intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) [8,9,10]. Although both procedures are often successful [11, 12], an osteotomy along the medial surface of the ramus might increase risks of excessive bleeding or permanent paresthesia of the lower jaw due to injury to the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle (IANB) entering the mandibular foramen [11,12,13]. The bony anatomical landmark for determining the safe zone of osteotomy on the lateral surface of the ramus is thus required to prevent these unfavorable outcomes.

The antilingula (AL) is a small prominence on the lateral surface of the ramus of the mandible. This structure was initially marked as a surgical reference for the mandibular foramen on the medial surface by Caldwell and Letterman [2]. Since then, several postulates regarding the position of the AL in relation to other anatomical structures have been established. Some surgeons hypothesized that the location of the AL roughly corresponded to the true lingula (LG) which is a bony projection overlapping the mandibular foramen [2, 14,15,16] and the compression from the nerves and blood vessels entering the foramen may cause the elevation on the opposite surface [17]. Others suggested that the AL possibly related to the insertion of the masseter muscle [18, 19]. In spite of being commonly used as a bony landmark for orthognathic surgery for several decades [9], whether the AL correctly represents the position of the LG or the opening of the mandibular canal is still under debate. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the position of the AL in relation to the LG, the anterior and the posterior borders of the mandibular foramen in Thai dry mandibles. In addition, the position of the AL was also determined in relation to the reference plane used in the inferior alveolar nerve block, and the posterior border of the ramus to provide a surgical guide during vertical osteotomy.

Materials and methods

Ethics

Exemption from ethics approval was granted by the Faculty of Dentistry and the Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Institutional Review board (MU-DT/PY-IRB), reference number: COE.No.MU-DT/PY-IRB 2021/022.2206. All experiments were performed according to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

The presence of the AL

One hundred thirteen Thai dried mandibles of unknown age and sex from the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital and the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University were initially selected. The most protruding point of the AL prominence on the ramus was identified as the AL point, while the most superior point of LG was identified as the LG point. All reference points were marked by the expert (the oral and maxillofacial surgeon) using an ultraviolet (UV) marker.

Accuracy and reliability in identifying the AL

The AL from 15 mandibles were identified by 3 dental students using an UV marker and re-examined by the expert using UV light. The locations of the AL identified by the students were compared to the expert and calculated as percent accuracy. The locations were also compared among 3 students and calculated as percent reliability.

Selection criteria for the mandibles

For the following experiments, the mandibles with these criteria were included in this study: presence of the AL in both sides of the ramus and presence of at least a premolar and the first molar (excluding the third molar).

All measurements were executed in triplicate using an 8-inch ABSOLUTE digimatic caliper (Mitutoyo, Japan) before being averaged.

The position of the reference points in relation to the AL in the x–y axis

The LG, the anterior border of the mandibular foramen (AMF) and the posterior border of the mandibular foramen (PMF) were set as the reference points and transferred to the lateral surface of the ramus using a 6-inch Outside Spring Caliper (Solar, India). The caliper was placed perpendicular to the surface of ramus and its axis was parallel to the horizontal plane. The distances from the reference points were measured by a digimatic caliper in relation to the AL which was set as an origin (0,0) and recorded as a co-ordinate where x was parallel to a horizontal axis, y was parallel to a vertical axis (Fig. 1A).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The position of the AL and the reference points. A The positions in relation to the x and y axes (blue lines). B The positions in relation to the occlusal plane. C The positions in relation to the posterior border of the ramus of the mandible. The green lines represent the reference plane which was parallel to the occlusal plane and passed the most concave point of the anterior border of the ramus (coronoid notch). The dashed lines represent the occlusal plane

Full size image

The position of the AL and the PMF in relation to the reference plane

The PMF was transferred to the lateral surface as previously described and the most concave point of the anterior border of the ramus (the coronoid notch) was marked. The occlusal plane in our study was marked by the line that passed the buccal cusp of a premolar and the mesiobuccal cusp of the first molar. The reference plane was determined as the plane which was parallel to the occlusal plane and passed through the coronoid notch. The distance from the AL and the PMF to the reference plane (ALr and PMFr, respectively) were measured perpendicular to the plane (Fig. 1B). The narrowest width of the ramus in an antero-posterior direction (W), the distance from the posterior border of the ramus to the AL and the PMF (ALw and PMFw, respectively) were measured parallel to the reference plane (Fig. 1C). The ratios of ALw/W and PMFw/W were subsequently calculated to normalize variations in size among the mandibles.

Statistical analysis

The side-dependency of the presence of the AL was analyzed using chi-square test. The statistical difference in measurements in left and right sides were analyzed using paired t-test. The measurements were compared to zero using one sample t-test. All the tests were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 27.0 (IBM Corp; Armonk, NY, USA). The distributions of all reference points from the AL were analysed using Minitab 17.0 (Minitab, Inc; State College, PA, USA) and the scatter plots were generated using GraphPad Prism 10.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc. San Diego, CA, USA).

Results

The presence of the AL

Of 113 Thai mandibles (226 sides), the AL was identified in 209 sides (92.48%) where 92.04% was on the left side and 92.92% was on the right side. The presence of the AL in both sides was observed in 102 mandibles (90.27%). There was no significant difference in the presence of the AL on left and right sides (p = 0.801).

Accuracy and reliability in identifying the AL

The locations of the AL in 30 sides of the mandibles identified by 3 students were confirmed by the expert. The accuracy of identification was in the range of 86.67 – 90.00% (Table 1). Comparison of the AL location was also performed among the students to assess the reliability of identification which showed that 86.67% of the locations were agreed by all students whereas 13.33% were agreed by 2 students (Table 1).

Table 1 The percentages of accuracy and reliability in identifying the AL
Full size table

After identifying the AL, 60 mandibles were selected from 113 mandibles based on the inclusion criteria to study the relationships between the AL and other structures.

The position of the AL in the x–y axis

The reference points (LG, AMF and PMF) were transferred to the lateral surface of the ramus and their distance from the AL were measured. There was no significant difference in the positions between left and right sides (Table 2). Therefore, the data from both sides were averaged and included in the analysis.

Table 2 Relationships between the reference points (LG, AMF and PMF) and the antilingula
Full size table

The position of the LG in relation to the AL

In the x-axis, the most posterior and anterior LGs were 6.16 mm and 9.38 mm, respectively, from the AL. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the position of the LG and the AL in antero-posterior dimension, with the LG being located 0.15 ± 2.68 mm anterior to the AL (Table 2). Conversely, in the y-axis, the position of the LG was 1.58 ± 3.26 mm inferior to the AL with the range of 11.00 mm inferior to the AL and 7.92 mm superior to the AL (Table 2). At 95% confidence interval, the LG was 0.99 – 2.16 mm inferior to the AL.

The analysis of the distribution of the LG from the AL showed that 31.67% of the LG was located antero-inferior to the AL (Fig. 2A) and 68.33% scattered within 5 mm radius from the AL while 86.67% scattered within 6 mm (Table 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Scatterplot showing the distributions of the reference points in relation the AL (0,0). A The LG. B The AMF. C The PMF. Black dot; average position of each reference point. D All average reference points in relation to the AL

Full size image
Table 3 Distribution of the lingula (LG), the anterior border of the mandibular foramen (AMF) and the posterior border of the mandibular foramen (PMF) within a 10 mm radius from the AL
Full size table

The position of the AMF in relation to the AL

In the x-axis, the position of the AMF was 1.40 ± 2.99 mm anterior to the AL with the range of 8.14 mm posterior to the AL and 9.38 mm anterior to the AL (Table 2). At 95% confidence interval, the AMF was 0.86 – 1.94 mm anterior to the AL. In the y-axis, the most inferior and superior positions of AMF were 6.73 mm, and 7.92 mm, respectively, from the AL. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the position of the AMF and the AL in supero-inferior dimension, with the AMF being located 0.10 ± 2.79 mm inferior to the AL (Table 2).

The analysis of the distribution of the AMF from the AL showed that 39.17% of the AMF was located antero-inferior to the AL (Fig. 2B) and the majority of the AMF positions (86.66%) scattered within 6 mm radius from the AL (Table 3).

The position of the PMF in relation to the AL

The PMF was in different position from the AL in both x- and y- axes. In the x-axis, the position of the PMF was 2.15 ± 3.27 mm posterior to the AL with the range of 11.21 mm posterior to the AL and 7.00 mm anterior to the AL (Table 2). At 95% confidence interval, the PMF was 1.55 – 2.74 mm posterior to the AL. In the y-axis, the position of the PMF was 7.61 ± 3.17 mm inferior to the AL with the range of 15.21 mm inferior to the AL and 1.00 mm superior to the AL. At 95% confidence interval, the PMF was 7.04 – 8.19 mm inferior to the AL (Table 2).

The analysis of the distribution of the PMF from the AL showed that the majority of the PMF (74.17%) was located postero-inferior to the AL (Fig. 2C) and only 6.67% scattered within 5 mm radius from the AL, while 55.00% scattered within 9 mm and 80.83% scattered within 11 mm radius (Table 3).

The relationship between the AL and all reference points is demonstrated in Fig. 2D.

The position of the AL in relation to the reference plane

The distances from the AL and the PMF to the reference plane were measured perpendicular to the plane (Table 4). The AL was located 2.80 ± 3.69 mm inferior to the reference plane (ALr). The furthest distances of the AL from the plane were 11.14 mm inferiorly and 17.00 mm superiorly. The PMF was located inferior to the plane with the distance of 8.36 ± 4.45 mm (PMFr). The furthest distances of the PMF from the plane were 17.55 mm inferiorly and 17.17 mm superiorly.

Table 4 Relationships between the anatomical landmarks (AL and PMF) and the reference plane
Full size table

The AL and the PMF were also measured from the posterior border of the mandible parallel to the reference plane (ALw and PMFw, respectively, Table 4). The ALw distance was 16.84 ± 2.60 mm with the range of 10.94 – 23.34 mm and the PMFw distance was 10.68 ± 2.72 mm with the range of 4.55 – 18.98 mm. The narrowest width measured parallel to the plane (W) was 34.03 ± 3.77 mm with the range of 24.43 – 46.46 mm thereby giving the ALw/W and PMFw/W ratios of 0.50 and 0.31, respectively.

Discussion

The AL is a bony prominence on the lateral surface of the mandibular ramus and has been used as a landmark during orthognathic surgery for decades [2, 20, 21]. However, the presence of the AL has been shown to vary across studies, even within those focused on Asian populations, ranging from 32.02 – 100% as demonstrated in Table 5. The methods of study probably impacted the identification of the AL, as it tends to be less visible in CT images compared to dry mandibles. In this present study, the AL could be detected in most samples and the presence of the AL was not shown to be associated with the presence of the LG. Our findings were consistent with the study of Apinhasmit [22] which was performed in Thai mandibles, albeit higher occurrence, and in agreement with Park et al. (Korean mandibles) [23] and Hsiao (Taiwanese patients) [24].

Table 5 Presence and reliability of the AL
Full size table

In orthognathic surgery, especially IVRO and inverted-L osteotomy (ILO) techniques, locating the LG from the buccal side of the mandibular ramus is a challenging task. Therefore, it is of importance that the AL, the anatomical landmark indicating the LG position on the lateral side, should be clearly visible and reliable. The accuracy in identification of the AL was assessed by comparing the positions identified by each dental student and the expert. The reliability was also evaluated by comparing the position identified by 3 students. Our assessments showed 86.67 – 90.00% accuracy and 86.67% reliability in identification of the AL which are higher than the studies of Pogrel [15], Yates [16] and Kapur [25] (Table 5). The high accuracy and reliability in our study supports the practicality of this landmark since it could be detected by both novices and experts without difficulty. Nevertheless, owing to the differences in reliability and accuracy among different ethnic groups, multi-center or multi-ethnicity studies should be warranted to confirm our findings before generalizing to other populations.

Although the AL on the lateral surface of the mandible has been commonly used to approximate the LG on the medial surface, several lines of evidence have proven that the AL was not exactly located on the same position as the LG [15, 22, 25, 26]. Indeed, the recent study indicated no correlation between these structures [24]. Our study showed that only 2.5% of the LG exactly corresponded to the AL and 68.33% distributed within 5 mm radius while 86.67% were found within 6 mm radius from the AL. However, while the common position of the LG was shown to be posterior and inferior to the AL [15, 22, 26, 27], the majority of the LG in this present study were located inferior to the AL with greater propensity in the anterior region, giving the percentage of 31.67%. The distribution in this antero-inferior region is comparable to the study of Apinhasmit (27.00%) [22]. Considering the distribution from the AL (Table 6), Pogrel [15] and Apinhasmit [22] showed 43.3% and 84.50%, respectively, of the LG were located within 5 mm radius. The latter is consistent with the distribution within 6 mm in our study. Because the difference of 1 mm is unlikely to be significant in clinical practice, it can be assumed that the LG are mostly located inferior to the AL and within 5 – 6 mm radius in Thai mandibles.

Table 6  Distribution of the LG within 10 mm radius (5 mm intervals) from the AL compared between studies
Full size table

Our study demonstrated that the LG was not always located on the same position as the AL on the lateral side. Moreover, the morphology of the LG has been shown to be diverse among genders and racial groups [28, 29]. Tuli et al. [30] classified such variations into 4 types: truncated, triangular, nodular and assimilated. Due to the diversity of its morphology, using the AL may not be the most suitable approach to identify the LG. Therefore, we also considered the relationship between the posterior border of the mandibular foramen which is another anatomical structure relating to the IANB and the AL. Our result is consistent with the previous studies [16, 23, 31] that the mandibular foramen was usually located posterior and inferior to the AL. Regarding its distribution, Yates et al. found 37.10% of the foramen was within 5 mm radius [16] from the AL whereas only 6.67% were detected in our study. This discrepancy might be because the foramen in the study of Yates et al. referred to the deepest point of the foramen. It is important that the size of the foramen should be taken into account as the width, which was shown to vary from 3 to 11 mm, is used to determine of the length of the horizontal osteotomy in ILO and BSSRO [32]. Consequently, the anterior border of the foramen was also investigated. Our result indicated that the AMF did not represent the position of the AL which is in agreement with the previous report by Hosapatna et al. [14].

We demonstrated that the mandibular foramen did not correspond to the AL especially its posterior border which was located further than other reference points from the AL. Therefore, the speculation that the IANB compresses the medial surface of the ramus and leads to a prominence on the lateral surface when the bundle passes through the foramen may not hold true. Reitzel et al. [18] and Hogan and Ellis [17] proposed another hypothesis that the AL is a bony elevation occurring in response to the tendon of the deep head of masseter muscle which inserts at the midpoint of the ramus. The elevation was called the masseteric apical bump [18, 19]. In addition, the bony ridge similar to that usually found at the insertion of a muscle was clearly observed in the mandible of primates and canines at the same area as the masseteric apical bump in human mandible [17]. This assumption is thus more likely to underlie the cause of the AL.

Apart from the horizontal plane, we also investigated the location of the reference points in relation to the reference plane which was parallel to the occlusal plane and passed through the coronoid notch, or the plane that serves as a guide for inferior alveolar nerve block. This reference plane is assumed to be at the level of the mandibular foramen and lies approximately 6–10 mm superior to the occlusal plane [33]. Our finding showed that the AL and the PMF were inferior to the reference plane with the distances of 2.80 ± 3.69 mm and 8.36 ± 4.45 mm, respectively. Since our results also indicated that the LG was 1.58 ± 3.26 mm inferior to the AL, we could estimate that the LG was positioned at 4.5 mm inferior to the reference plane, or approximately 5.5 mm superior to the occlusal plane. Consistent with our data, a previous study on Thai mandibles reported that 78.52% of the LG was located 4.5 mm superior to the occlusal plane [29]. To our knowledge, our study is the first to report the AL and the PMF relative to the plane used in the inferior alveolar nerve block, a plane well recognized by most dental surgeons. These relationships can be applied to estimate the position of the irregular shaped AL and the posterior border of the mandibular foramen when the AL cannot be identified.

The recommended distance to avoid damage to the IANB in IVRO is 7 – 8 mm anterior to the posterior border of the ramus [9] or 8 mm posterior to the AL [25]. In addition, Werther and Hall [34] proposed that the length of the ramus posterior to the osteotomy line should be at least 6 mm to preserve the viability of the remaining bone. When the AL is used as a reference point, our results suggested that in Thai mandibles, the distance of 10 – 11 mm posterior to the AL is considered safe for the vertical osteotomy. This distance is far enough to avoid IANB while the bone viability can still be preserved. Due to the variations in the size of the ramus, the ratios of the measurements were also calculated. Our PMFw/W ratio is also consistent with Park et al. and Chen et al. [23, 35] indicating that the region suitable for IVRO is the point at the posterior one third of the ramus, or at 30% of the horizontal length of the ramus from the posterior border. However, the location of the AL and the mandibular foramen can vary among different facial morphologies i.e. short and broad face, or long and narrow face, and skeletal patterns i.e. skeletal class I, II and III [10, 36]. Therefore, careful considerations should be taken when using the AL as a sole reference point of the mandibular foramen. The estimation of the mandibular foramen in relation to the AL using a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) can also endorse the use of the AL in clinical setting [27, 35].

The limitation of this study was that the mandibles were of unknown age and sex which are the factors affecting the morphology of the mandibular ramus and the structures on the ramus. A recent study showed that the location of the AL and the dimensions of the ramus were correlated with sex [10], probably due to the smaller size of female mandibles compared to male mandibles. Another study also indicated the tendency for the mandibular foramen to shift superiorly with advancing age [37]. Nevertheless, whether the location of the AL changes in a similar pattern with the foramen requires further clarifications. In clinical practice, the ages of patients undergoing orthognathic surgery are generally younger than those of the dried mandible in our study. This age difference should be considered when estimating the location of the mandibular foramen.

Conclusions

The AL is an anatomical structure which can be identified in most of the Thai mandibles with high accuracy and reliability. Although the AL is not located on the exact position of the LG, the anterior or the posterior borders of the mandibular foramen on the medial surface, its position can be used as a reference point to estimate these structures which are predominantly located within 11 mm radius. Based on the occlusal plane and the posterior border of the ramus, this present study suggested the safe region for vertical osteotomy which is 10–11 mm posterior to the AL or at 30% of the horizontal length from the posterior border. The use of AL to approximate the mandibular foramen during operation should be combined with the distance determined from the CBCT during preoperative planning to prevent iatrogenic injury to the IANB.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AL:

Antilingula

ALr :

Distance from the antilingula to the reference plane

ALw :

Distance from the antilingula to the posterior border of the ramus

LG:

Lingula

AMF:

Anterior border of the mandibular foramen

PMF:

Posterior border of the mandibular foramen

PMFr :

Distance from the posterior border of the mandibular foramen to the posterior border of the ramus measured parallel to the reference plane

W:

The narrowest width of the ramus in an antero-posterior direction measured parallel to the reference plane

CBCT:

Cone beam computed tomography

CT:

Computed tomography

IANB:

Inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle

BSSRO:

Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy

IVRO:

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy

ILO:

Inverted-L osteotomy

References

  1. Schuchardt G. Ein Beitrag zur chirurgischen Kieferorthpadie unter Berucksichtigung ihrer fur di Behandlung angeborener und erworbener Kiefer deformitaten bei soldaten. Dtsch Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd. 1942;9:73–89.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Caldwell JB, Letterman GS. Vertical osteotomy in the mandibular raml for correction of prognathism. J Oral Surg (Chic). 1954;12(3):185–202.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dal Pont G. Retromolar osteotomy for the correction of prognathism. J Oral Surg Anesth Hosp Dent Serv. 1961;19:42–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Epker BN. Modifications in the sagittal osteotomy of the mandible. J Oral Surg. 1977;35(2):157–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hunsuck EE. A modified intraoral sagittal splitting technic for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Oral Surg. 1968;26(4):250–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Trauner R, Obwegeser H. The surgical correction of mandibular prognathism and retrognathia with consideration of genioplasty. I. Surgical procedures to correct mandibular prognathism and reshaping of the chin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1957;10(7):677–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Trauner R, Obwegeser H. The surgical correction of mandibular prognathism and retrognathia with consideration of genioplasty. II. Operating methods for microgenia and distoclusion. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1957;10(9):899–909.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Monson LA. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. Semin Plast Surg. 2013;27(3):145–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. McKenna SJ, King EE. Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy procedure and technique. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2016;24(1):37–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen HS, Chen YS, Lin IL, Chen CF. Antilingula as a surgical reference point for vertical ramus osteotomy. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:5585297.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim SG, Park SS. Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(12):2438–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Panula K, Finne K, Oikarinen K. Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery: a review of 655 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59(10):1128–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Panula K, Finne K, Oikarinen K. Neurosensory deficits after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy of the mandible–influence of soft tissue handling medial to the ascending ramus. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;33(6):543–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hosapatna M, Ankolekar VH, D’Souza AS, Deepika C, D’Souza A. The study of antilingula and its relation to the lingula and mandibular foramen, the presence of mylohyoid bridging in dry mandibles of South Indian population. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015;14(2):308–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pogrel MA, Schmidt BL, Ammar A. The presence of the antilingula and its relationship to the true lingula. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;33(4):235–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yates C, Olson D, Guralnick W. The antilingula as an anatomic landmark in oral surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1976;41(6):705–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hogan G, Ellis E. The, “antilingula”- fact or fiction? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64(8):1248–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Reitzik M, Griffiths RR, Mirels H. Surgical anatomy of the ascending ramus of the mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1976;14(2):150–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tamás F. The groove of the mandibular neck as a risk factor in vertical osteotomy of the ramus of the mandible. Int J Oral Sur. 1979;8(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Berényi B. Open subcondylar osteotomy in the treatment of mandibular deformities. Int J Oral Surg. 1973;2(3):81–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Levine B, Topazian DS. The intraoral inverted-L double-oblique osteotomy of the mandibular ramus: a new technique for correction of mandibular prognathism. J Oral Surg. 1976;34(6):522–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Apinhasmit W, Chompoopong S, Jansisyanont P, Supachutikul K, Rattanathamsakul N, Ruangves S, Sangvichien S. The study of position of antilingula, midwaist of mandibular ramus and midpoint between coronoid process and gonion in relation to lingula of 92 Thai dried mandibles as potential surgical landmarks for vertical ramus osteotomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2011;33(4):337–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Park JH, Jung HD, Kim HJ, Jung YS. Anatomical study of the location of the antilingula, lingula, and mandibular foramen for vertical ramus osteotomy. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;40(1):15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hsiao SY, Hsu KJ, Liang SW, Tseng YC, Chen CM. The presence probability of mandibular lingla and antilingula. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;121(6):621–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kapur M, Shah RA, Ferro A, Basyuni S, Brassett C, Santhanam V. Sexual dimorphism and geographical variance: their impact on the reliability of the antilingula as a landmark in human mandibular surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;59(8):898–904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Aziz SR, Dorfman BJ, Ziccardi VB, Janal M. Accuracy of using the antilingula as a sole determinant of vertical ramus osteotomy position. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(5):859–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hsu HJ, Chen YS, Chen PH, Chen HS, Chen CM. The correlation between surgical reference points: antilingula, lingula, and mandibular foramen. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;122(6):535–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alves N, Deana NF. Morphological study of the lingula in adult human mandibles of Brazilians individuals and clinical implications. BioMed Res Int. 2015;2015:873751.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Jansisyanont P, Apinhasmit W, Chompoopong S. Shape, height, and location of the lingula for sagittal ramus osteotomy in Thais. Clin Anat. 2009;22(7):787–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tuli A, Choudhry R, Choudhry S, Raheja S, Agarwal S. Variation in shape of the lingula in the adult human mandible. J Anat. 2000;197(2):313–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Langston JR, Tebo HG. The incidence and relationship of the lateral ramus prominence to the mandibular foramen. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1977;44(2):190–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Daw JL Jr, de la Paz MG, Han H, Aitken ME, Patel PK. The mandibular foramen: an anatomic study and its relevance to the sagittal ramus osteotomy. J Craniofac Surg. 1999;10(6):475–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Malamed SF. Handbook of local anesthesia. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Werther JR, Hall HD. Vertical ramus osteotomy and the inverted-L osteotomy. In Fonseca RJ Oral and maxillofacial surgery. Vol 2 (orthognathic surgery). Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2000. p. 311–24.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chen CM, Hsu HJ, Liang SW, Chen PH, Hsu KJ, Tseng YC. Two-thirds anteroposterior ramus length is the preferred osteotomy point for intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(2):1229–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Correa S, Motta R, Silva M, Figueroba S, Groppo F, Ramacciato J. Position of the mandibular foramen in different facial shapes assessed by cone-beam computed tomography - A cross-sectional retrospective study. Open Dent J. 2019;13:544–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sevmez F, Orhan M, Bahşi I, Yalçin ED. Examination of the safe zone in mandibular ramus osteotomies. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(6):2219–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Martone CH, Ben-Josef AM, Wolf SM, Mintz SM. Dimorphic study of surgical anatomic landmarks of the lateral ramus of the mandible. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1993;75(4):436–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Monnazzi MS, Passeri LA, Gabrielli MF, Bolini PD, de Carvalho WR, da Costa MH. Anatomic study of the mandibular foramen, lingula and antilingula in dry mandibles, and its statistical relationship between the true lingula and the antilingula. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(1):74–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Park KR, Kim SY, Kim GJ, Park HS, Jung YS. Anatomic study to determine a safe surgical reference point for mandibular ramus osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(1):22–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhao K, Hou Y, Zhang B, Wang R, Yuan H. CBCT study on the relationship between lingula and antilingula position in a Chinese Han population. Surg Radiol Anat. 2019;41(6):663–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sinanoglu A, Seki U, Tokuc B. A detailed radiomorphometric analysis of the mandibular foramen, lingula and anti-lingula with a special emphasis on mandibular prognathism. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;124(1):101260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital and the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University for research facility. We would also like to thank Mr. Jesada Sabai for taking the photographs of the dried skulls. Lastly, we gratefully acknowledge all skull donors for major contribution to this study.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Mahidol University This study was supported by the Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Chakorn Vorakulpipat

  2. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Tawepong Arayapisit & Varunya Chantadul

  3. Department of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Pee Topothai

  4. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Vathanai Bhunyanaphakul

  5. Sirindhorn College of Public Health, Suphanburi, Thailand

    Keerati Tiptimaphan

  6. Dentineer Dental Clinic, Bangkok, Thailand

    Nattha Apilakkitakul

Authors
  1. Chakorn Vorakulpipat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tawepong Arayapisit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pee Topothai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vathanai Bhunyanaphakul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Keerati Tiptimaphan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nattha Apilakkitakul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Varunya Chantadul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CV: Conceptualization, research design, data analysis, discussion of the result, manuscript preparation. TA: Initiation, conceptualization, research design and experimentation, data analysis, discussion of the result, manuscript preparation, support for specimens. PT, VB, KT, NA: Research design and experimentation, data collection and analysis, discussion of the result, manuscript preparation. VC: Conceptualization, research design, data analysis, discussion of the result, manuscript preparation, support for specimens. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Varunya Chantadul.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Exemption from ethics approval was granted by the Faculty of Dentistry and the Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Institutional Review board (MU-DT/PY-IRB), reference number: COE.No.MU-DT/PY-IRB 2021/022.2206. All experiments were performed according to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Because this study was performed on unidentified dried skulls, informed consent was waived by the IRB of the Faculty of Dentistry and the Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vorakulpipat, C., Arayapisit, T., Topothai, P. et al. Determining the position of the lingula and the mandibular foramen using the antilingula in orthognathic surgery. BMC Oral Health 24, 499 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04286-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04286-7

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us