The Examination of Root Morphology of the Maxillary First and Second Molars Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography
Document Type : مقالههای پژوهشی
Authors
1 Dentistry Graduate Student, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental School, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
4 Post Graduate Student, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
10.48305/v0i0.1839
Abstract
Introduction: Maxillary molars usually have three roots, four canals and the extra canal often exists in the mesiobuccal root. This study aimed to investigate the root morphology of maxillary first and second molars using CBCT.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive-analytical study, CBCT samples of 200 patients referred to maxillofacial radiology centers were selected and evaluated. Two-dimensional images in panoramic, cross-sectional, and transverse axial planes and three-dimensional images of the maxilla building that were reconstructed by a computer were examined. Analyzed data using one-way ANOVA and t-test (p value < 0.05)
Results: The highest number of roots in the first molar was 3 (89.5%) and, the highest number of the second molar was 3 (90%). The maximum number of root canals in the first molar was 4 (65%) and, the highest number of root canals in the second molar was 3 (68%). The MB2 canal of maxillary first molars was 67.5% and the MB2 canal of maxillary second molars was absent at 71.5%. The presence of MB2 canal of maxillary first and second molars had no significant difference (p value > 0.05), but the presence of MB2 canal of maxillary first and second molars was significant (p value < 0.001).
Conclusion: There is a significant relationship between being unilateral and bilateral with the presence of the mesiobuccal canal. Most of the first maxillary molars and, maxillary second molars had three separate roots. Also, there was no significant relationship between gender and side of study with the presence of mesiobuccal canal.
Keywords: Maxilla, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Anatomy and histology.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive-analytical study, CBCT samples of 200 patients referred to maxillofacial radiology centers were selected and evaluated. Two-dimensional images in panoramic, cross-sectional, and transverse axial planes and three-dimensional images of the maxilla building that were reconstructed by a computer were examined. Analyzed data using one-way ANOVA and t-test (p value < 0.05)
Results: The highest number of roots in the first molar was 3 (89.5%) and, the highest number of the second molar was 3 (90%). The maximum number of root canals in the first molar was 4 (65%) and, the highest number of root canals in the second molar was 3 (68%). The MB2 canal of maxillary first molars was 67.5% and the MB2 canal of maxillary second molars was absent at 71.5%. The presence of MB2 canal of maxillary first and second molars had no significant difference (p value > 0.05), but the presence of MB2 canal of maxillary first and second molars was significant (p value < 0.001).
Conclusion: There is a significant relationship between being unilateral and bilateral with the presence of the mesiobuccal canal. Most of the first maxillary molars and, maxillary second molars had three separate roots. Also, there was no significant relationship between gender and side of study with the presence of mesiobuccal canal.
Keywords: Maxilla, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Anatomy and histology.
1. Ingle JI, Bakland LK, Baunmgartner JC. Ingles' endodontics. 6th ed. Hamilton, CA: BC Decker; 2008. p. 24-6.
2. Zhang R, Yang H, Yu X, Wang H, Hu T, Dummer PM. Use of CBCT to identify the morphology of maxillary permanent molar teeth in a Chinese subpopulation. Int Endod J 2011; 44(2): 162-9.
3. Hartwell G, Appelstein CM, Lyons WW, Guzek ME. The incidence of four canals in maxillary first molars: a clinical determination. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138(10): 1344-6.
4. Yu X, Guo B, Li KZ, Zhang R, Tian YY, Wang H, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography study of root and canal morphology of mandibular premolars in a western Chinese population. BMC Med Imaging 2012; 12: 18.
5. Silva EJ, Nejaim Y, Silva AI, Haiter-Neto F, Zaia AA, Cohenca N. Evaluation of root canal configuration of maxillary molars in a Brazilian population using cone-beam computed tomographic imaging: an in vivo study. J Endod 2014; 40(2): 173-6.
6. 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): 1063-8.
7. Rouhani A, Bagherpour A, Akbari M, Azizi M, Nejat A, Naghavi N. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of maxillary first and second molars in Iranian population: a morphological study. Iran Endod J 2014; 9(3): 190-4.
8. Silveira LF, Marques MM, da Costa RK, Martos J, Lorenzi A. Location and negotiability of second mesiobuccal canal in upper molar by tomographic and anatomical macroscopic analysis. Surg Radiol Anat 2013; 35(9): 791-5.
9. Martos J, Lubian C, Silveira LFM, de Castro LAS, Ferrer Luque CM. Morphologic analysis of the root apex in human teeth. J Endod 2010; 36(4): 664-7.
10. Iqbal M, Fillmore E. Preoperative predictors of number of root canals clinically detected in maxillary molars: a PennEndo Database study. J Endod 2008; 34(4): 413-6.
11. Neelakantan P, Subbarao C, Subbarao CV. Comparative evaluation of modified canal staining and clearing technique, cone-beam computed tomography, peripheral quantitative computed tomography, spiral computed tomography, and plain and contrast medium-enhanced digital radiography in studying root canal morphology. J Endod 2010; 36(9): 1547-51.
12. Zheng QH, Wang Y, Zhou XD, Wang Q, Zheng GN, Huang DM. A cone-beam computed tomography study of maxillary first permanent molar root and canal morphology in a Chinese population. J Endod 2010; 36(9): 1480-4.
13. Alrahabi M, Sohail Zafar M. Evaluation of root canal morphology of maxillary molars using cone beam computed tomography. Pak J Med Sci 2015; 31(2): 426-30.
14. Reis AGAR, Grazziotin-Soares R, Barletta FB, Fontanella VRC, Mahl CRW. Second canal in mesiobuccal root of maxillary molars is correlated with root third and patient age: a cone-beam computed tomographic study. J Endod 2013; 39(5): 588-92.
15. Lee JH, Kim KD, Lee JK, Park W, Jeong JS, Lee Y, 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 2011; 111(6): 785-91.
16. Shenoi RP, Ghule HM. CBVT analysis of canal configuration of the mesio buccal root of maxillary first permanent molar teeth: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012; 3(3): 277-81.
17. Blattner TC, George N, Lee CC, Kumar V, Yelton CDJ. Efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography as a modality to accurately identify the presence of second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary first and second molars: a pilot study. J Endod 2010; 36(5): 867-70.
18. Ghoncheh Z, Moghaddamzadeh B, Kharazifard M J. Root morphology of the maxillary first and second molars in an Iranian population using cone beam computed tomography. J Dent (Tehran) 2017; 14(3): 115-2.
19. Ratanajirasut R, Panichuttra A, Panmekiate S. A cone-beam computed tomographic study of root and canal morphology of maxillary first and second permanent molars in a Thai population. J Endod 2018; 44(1): 56-61.
20. Ghasemi N, Saeed R, Shahi Sh. A review on root anatomy and canal configuration of the maxillary second molars. Iran Endod J 2017; 12(1): 1-9.
21. Khademi Ai, Zamani Naser A, Bahreinian Z, Mehdizadeh M, Najarian M, Khazaei S. Root morphology and canal configuration of first and second maxillary molars in a selected Iranian population: A cone-beam computed tomography evaluation. Iran Endod J 2017; 12(3): 288-92.
)