## 4 Discussion  
Various studies have been carried out on the predictability of the eruption of the mandibular lower third molar, based on the size of the bony structures of the mandible. These studies have been conducted using both lateral cephalometric and orthopanoramic radiographs; however, not many authors have compared the different radiographic techniques [21; 26; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33] for mandibular measurements. The few authors who have compared the different techniques have found excellent results when using both methods. Therefore, they have concluded that they are both valid tools for diagnostic investigation in this area and that the choice between them depends on the experience of the clinician. They are routinely used in dentists' normal professional practice [23] both to obtain an initial general diagnosis of a patient's oral health status and for more in-depth examinations of third molar inclusion, for which digital orthopanoramic examinations are also used. The subjects were selected upon the consideration that an age between 18 to 25 years of age is the average age of eruption and complete formation of the mandibular third molar. Various studies have reported [29; 30; 31] that the ideal age for studying the incidence of the lower third molar is between 20 and 25 years. In total, 81 subjects were considered, and the age range was extended to between 18 and 25 years of age, on the condition that the tooth's root had been completely formed. In our study, we found that the length of the condyle-coronoid process in the experimental group was greater than that in the control group. This result was partially in agreement with that of [PERSON] [5], who found an association between a greater ascending ramus size and the inclusion of the lower third molar. In contrast, the height of the branch and its total size were larger in the control group than in the experimental group. Significant differences were found in these measurements, which differed from the result obtained by [PERSON] [30], who found uniformity between results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Group (Female**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experimental Group (Female**} \\
**Variable** & **Group A, \(n=12\))** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group B, \(n=19\))**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\) Value *} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & \\ \hline Condyle length (cm) & 1.81 & 0.36 & 1.82 & 0.53 & 0.943 \\ \hline Coronoid length (cm) & 1.10 & 0.28 & 1.50 & 0.37 & **0.004** \\ \hline Ramus height (cm) & 6.23 & 0.67 & 6.25 & 0.70 & 0.930 \\ \hline Total ramus height (cm) & 7.23 & 0.77 & 7.35 & 0.82 & 0.688 \\ \hline Ramal width (cm) & 3.46 & 0.41 & 3.75 & 0.45 & 0.077 \\ \hline Mandibular body length (cm) & 11.32 & 1.48 & 10.93 & 1.04 & 0.396 \\ \hline Sigmoid notch depth (cm) & 1.35 & 0.23 & 1.56 & 0.33 & 0.069 \\ \hline Posterior ramus notch depth (cm) & 0.27 & 0.17 & 0.30 & 0.13 & 0.537 \\ \hline Anterior ramus notch depth (cm) & 0.28 & 0.26 & 0.24 & 0.20 & 0.584 \\ \hline Antegional notch depth (cm) & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.20 & 0.16 & 0.505 \\ \hline Third molar width (cm) & 1.35 & 0.46 & 1.42 & 0.13 & 0.525 \\ \hline Retromolar space (cm) & 1.49 & 0.76 & 1.19 & 0.65 & 0.255 \\ \hline Angle condyle—coronoid process (deg) & 28.17 & 4.95 & 30.53 & 4.41 & 0.177 \\ \hline Gonial angle (deg) & 124.92 & 5.23 & 123.00 & 7.83 & 0.461 \\ \hline Inclination of lower posterior teeth (deg) & 96.50 & 5.50 & 92.58 & 5.81 & 0.072 \\ \hline Angle of impaction (deg) & 83.58 & 26.98 & 67.37 & 36.62 & 0.197 \\ \hline Retromolar space/3M width (ratio) & 1.07 & 0.45 & 0.85 & 0.50 & 0.240 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
*: using Student’s \(t\)-test.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison between female group A (FA) and group B (FB). Regarding the branch width, the experimental group showed a slightly wider measurement than the control group did. This result was in line with [PERSON]'s study [30], although [PERSON]'s results showed a sharper difference.