Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2019, vol. 56, nr 1, January-March, p. 45–51

doi: 10.17219/dmp/101783

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Assessment of root canal morphology of maxillary and mandibular second molars in the Iranian population using CBCT

Ocena morfologii kanałów korzeniowych drugich górnych i dolnych zębów trzonowych w populacji irańskiej z wykorzystaniem tomografii stożkowej

Zakiyeh Donyavi1,A, Abbas Shokri2,A,D, Elham Khoshbin1,E, Maryam Khalili1,A,B,D,E,F, Javad Faradmal3,4,C

1 Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

2 Dental Implant Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

3 Modeling of Non-communicable Diseases Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

4 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Abstract

Background. Inability to efficiently clean all root canals due to the complex anatomy of the root canal system is a common cause of endodontic treatment failure.
Objectives. This study aimed to assess the root canal morphology of the maxillary and mandibular second molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Material and Methods. This descriptive study evaluated 502 CBCT scans taken in the years 2014–2017. The number of roots and canals, type of canals according to the Vertucci classification, presence of maxillary second molars with 2 palatal roots, and C‑shaped canals in the maxillary and mandibular second molars were evaluated on CBCT scans separately by a radiologist and 2 endodontists. The data was analyzed using SPSS via descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact test, the independent samples t-test, and the χ2 test. All the analyses were performed with a confidence level of 95%.
Results. The majority of the palatal, mesiobuccal and distobuccal roots of the maxillary second molars had 1 single canal of Vertucci type I; 21.5% of the mesiobuccal roots had a second mesiobuccal canal (p = 0.05).
Conclusion. Two-rooted mandibular second molars and 3-rooted maxillary second molars were the most common in our study population. Cone-beam computed tomography as a non-invasive and highly accurate imaging modality is efficacious for the detection of additional roots and C‑shaped canals.

Key words

cone-beam computed tomography, morphology, root canal

Słowa kluczowe

tomografia stożkowa, morfologia, kanał korzeniowy

References (29)

  1. Monika, Dhawan R, Dhawan S, Mehta P. Analysis of root canal anatomy and morphological variations of maxillary 1st molar by different methods – an in vitro study. Endodontolgy. 2014;26(2):279–285
  2. Al‐Qudah AA, Awawdeh LA. Root and canal morphology of mandibular first and second molar teeth in a Jordanian population. Int Endod J. 2009;42(9):775–784.
  3. Mărgărit R, Andrei OC. Anatomical variations of mandibular first molar and their implications in endodontic treatment. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2011;52(4):1389–1392.
  4. Sobhani Mohhsen A, Razmi H, Sadegh M. Evaluation of anatomy and morphology of human mandibular premolar teeth by cone-beam computed tomography in Iranian population. Journal of Dental Science. 2013;26(3):203–210.
  5. Ravanshad S, Nabavizade MR. Endodontic treatment of a mandibular second molar with two mesial roots: Report of a case. Iran Endod J. 2008;3(4):137–140.
  6. Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1984;58(5):589–599.
  7. Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, Schwartz SA, Schindler WG. Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod. 2007;33(9):1121–1132.
  8. Celikten B, Tufenkci P, Aksoy U, et al. Cone beam CT evaluation of mandibular molar root canal morphology in a Turkish Cypriot population. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(8):2221–2226.
  9. Torres A, Jacobs R, Lambrechts P, et al. Characterization of mandibular molar root and canal morphology using cone beam computed tomography and its variability in Belgian and Chilean population samples. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015;45(2):95–101.
  10. Neelakantan P, Subbarao C, Ahuja R, Subbarao CV, Gutmann JL. Cone-beam computed tomography study of root and canal morphology of maxillary first and second molars in an Indian population. J Endod. 2010;36(10):1622–1627.
  11. Ng YL, Aung T, Alavi A, Gulabivala K. Root and canal morphology of Burmese maxillary molars. Int Endod J. 2001;34(8):620–630.
  12. Sadeghi M, Sadr LM. An in vitro study on root canal anatomy in maxillary molars. Maj Dand. 2004;16:14–21. [Please check this position.]
  13. Kim Y, Lee SJ, Woo J. Morphology of maxillary first and second molars analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography in a Korean population: Variations in the number of roots and canals and the incidence of fusion. J Endod. 2012;38(8):1063–1068.
  14. Lee JH, Kim KD, Lee JK, et al. Mesiobuccal root canal anatomy of Korean maxillary first and second molars by cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111(6):785–791.
  15. Alavi AM, Opasanon A, Ng YL, Gulabivala K. Root and canal morphology of Thai maxillary molars. Int Endod J. 2002;35(5):478–485.
  16. al Shalabi RM, Omer OE, Glennon J, Jennings M, Claffey NM. Root canal anatomy of maxillary first and second permanent molars. Int Endod J. 2000;33(5):405–414.
  17. Gomes Alves CR, Martins Marques M, Stella Moreira M, Harumi Miyagi de Cara SP, Silveira Bueno CE, Lascala CÂ. Second mesiobuccal root canal of maxillary first molars in a Brazilian population in high-resolution cone-beam computed tomography. Iran Endod J. 2018;13(1):71–77.
  18. Wang H, Ci B, Zhang X, et al. Analysis of patients with a second canal in mesiobuccal root of maxillary molars in Southern China: A retrospective study. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2017;10(9):13678–13688.
  19. Guo J, Vahidnia A, Sedghizadeh P, Enciso R. Evaluation of root and canal morphology of maxillary permanent first molars in a North American population by cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2014;40(5):635–639.
  20. Gulabivala K, Aung TH, Alavi A, Ng YL. Root and canal morphology of Burmese mandibular molars. Int Endod J. 2001;34(5):359–370.
  21. Zhang R, Wang H, Tian YY, Yu X, Hu T, Dummer PM. Use of cone‐beam computed tomography to evaluate root and canal morphology of mandibular molars in Chinese individuals. Int Endod J. 2011;44(11):990–999.
  22. Ahmed HA, Abu‐Bakr NH, Yahia NA, Ibrahim YE. Root and canal morphology of permanent mandibular molars in a Sudanese population. Int Endod J. 2007;40(10):766–771.
  23. Weine FS, Pasiewicz RA, Rice RT. Canal configuration of the mandibular second molar using a clinically oriented in vitro method. J Endod. 1988;14(5):207–213.
  24. Ashraf H, Grayeli M. Determine frequency and anatomic form of the C-shaped canals in mandibular second molars. J Dent Sch. 2004;21(21):441–446.
  25. Nourmandipour M, Nasiri M. Prevalence of C-shaped mandibular second molars in Zahedan. Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences (Tabib-E-Shargh). 2008;9(4):313–318.
  26. Weine FS; Members of the Arizona Endodontic Association. The C-shaped mandibular second molar: Incidence and other considerations. J Endod. 1998;24(5):372–375.
  27. Ladeira DB, Cruz AD, Freitas DQ, Almeida SM. Prevalence of C-shaped root canal in a Brazilian subpopulation: A cone-beam computed tomography analysis. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28:39–45.
  28. Sartaj M, Sangra A, Farooq R, Rashid A, Ahmad F. C-shaped configuration of the root canal system of mandibular second molar: A case report. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2017;3(1):98–100.
  29. Zheng Q, Zhang L, Zhou X, et al. C‐shaped root canal system in mandibular second molars in a Chinese population evaluated by cone‐beam computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2011;44(9):857–862.