Evaluation of Prevalence and Quality of Root Resorption of Second Molar Adjacent the Impacted Third Molar in 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 Assosiate Professor, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assosiate Professor, Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
4 Postgraduate Student, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
10.48305/v0i0.1918
Abstract
Introduction: Impacted third molar reduces the bone level in the distal aspect of second molar, and sometimes it can lead to external root resorption of the adjacent second molar. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and quality of this resorption using cone-beam computed tomography scanning.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study, CBCT images selected from 60 patients (including 107 maxillary & mandibular impacted third molars) were obtained from patients referring to maxillofacial radiology department of dental faculty of Islamic Azad University of Isfahan (Khorasgan) in 2016. Under observation of oral radiologist, the images were examined (two times with one-week interval) in axial, coronal, and sagittal sections and recorded to diagnose external root resorption in CBCT. The data were analyzed via descriptive statistics including contingency tables and relative abundance.
Results: The prevalence of external root resorption of second molar, adjacent to the third molar were 43.25%. The most common type of third molar impaction were mesioangular third molars (41.1%) and in the next level were the vertical (28.1%), and distoangular (18.7) and then horizontal (12.1). The most common location of resorption in mandibular second molar teeth was in 1.3 of cervical (62.5%), and then 1.3 of apical (20.8%) and 1.3 of the middle (12.5%). Also one of teeth resorptions (4.2%) was between the 1.3 of apical and 1.3 of the middle. The most common site of resorption in maxillary second molar teeth was at 1.3 of the apical (68.45%), and then at the 1.3 of the middle (17.35%) and 1.3 of cervical (8.7%). With regards to the severity of resorption; 78.96% of resorptions were mild, 12.03% severe, and 9.03 were moderate.
Conclusions: The prevalence of this type of resorption is almost high and the most common position of impacted third molars that resulted in this type of resorption are mesioangular and horizontal. Most common site of resorption in the maxilla was 1.3 of the apical and in the mandible was 1.3 of the cervical, which were often mild in resorption.
Keywords: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Root resorption, Impacted tooth, Third molar.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study, CBCT images selected from 60 patients (including 107 maxillary & mandibular impacted third molars) were obtained from patients referring to maxillofacial radiology department of dental faculty of Islamic Azad University of Isfahan (Khorasgan) in 2016. Under observation of oral radiologist, the images were examined (two times with one-week interval) in axial, coronal, and sagittal sections and recorded to diagnose external root resorption in CBCT. The data were analyzed via descriptive statistics including contingency tables and relative abundance.
Results: The prevalence of external root resorption of second molar, adjacent to the third molar were 43.25%. The most common type of third molar impaction were mesioangular third molars (41.1%) and in the next level were the vertical (28.1%), and distoangular (18.7) and then horizontal (12.1). The most common location of resorption in mandibular second molar teeth was in 1.3 of cervical (62.5%), and then 1.3 of apical (20.8%) and 1.3 of the middle (12.5%). Also one of teeth resorptions (4.2%) was between the 1.3 of apical and 1.3 of the middle. The most common site of resorption in maxillary second molar teeth was at 1.3 of the apical (68.45%), and then at the 1.3 of the middle (17.35%) and 1.3 of cervical (8.7%). With regards to the severity of resorption; 78.96% of resorptions were mild, 12.03% severe, and 9.03 were moderate.
Conclusions: The prevalence of this type of resorption is almost high and the most common position of impacted third molars that resulted in this type of resorption are mesioangular and horizontal. Most common site of resorption in the maxilla was 1.3 of the apical and in the mandible was 1.3 of the cervical, which were often mild in resorption.
Keywords: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Root resorption, Impacted tooth, Third molar.
1. Hupp J, Tucker MR, Eliss E. Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2019. p. 143-53.
2. Oenning ACC, Melo SLS, Groppo FC, Haiter-Neto F. Mesial inclination of impacted third molars and its propensity to stimulate external root resorption in second molars--a cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 73(3): 379-86.
3. Oenning ACC, Neves FS, Alencar PNB, Prado RF, Groppo FC, Haiter-Neto F. External root resorption of the second molar associated with third molar impaction: comparison of panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 72(8): 1444-55.
4. Saravi ME, Refoa Y, Nazari Dashlibrun Y, Sharifi R. Prevalent of root resorption of second molar adjustment the impacted third molar in prepiacal and panoramic radiographs. J Dent Med Tehran Univ Med Sci 2013; 26(4): 288-94. [In Persian].
5. Newman M, Takei H, Klokkevold P, Carranza F. Newman and Carranza's clinical periodontology. 13th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2019. p. 871-8.
6. Nemcovsky CE, Libfeld H, Zubery Y. Effect of nonerupted third molars on distal roots and supporting structures of approximal teeth. A radiographic survey of 202 cases. J Clin Periodontol 1996; 23(9): 810-5.
7. Girdler NM. The unpredictability of impacted third molar development--the danger of passive observation. Br Dent J 1990; 168(3): 92.
8. Wang HY. Root resorption associated with impacted maxillary third molar. Oral Sur Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992; 73(6): 765-6.
9. Almendros-Marques N, Berini-Aytes L, Gay-Escoda C. Influence of lower third molar position on the incidence of preoperative complications. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102(6): 725-32.
10. Ponder SN, Benavides E, Kapila S, Hatch NE. Quantification of external root resorption by low- vs high-resolution cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography: A volumetric and linear analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143(1):77-91.
11. Oana L, Zetu I, Petcu A, Nemtoi A, Dragan E, Haba D. The essential role of cone beam computed tomography to diagnose the localization of impacted maxillary canine and to detect the austerity of the adjacent root resorption in the Romanian population. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi 2013; 117(1): 212-6.
12. Al-Khateeb TH, Bataineh AB. Patholigy associated with impacted mandibular third molars in a group of Jordanians. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64(11): 1598-602.
13. Ericson S, Bjerklin K, Falahat B. Does the canine dental follicle cause resorption of permanent incisor roots? A computed tomographic study of erupting maxillary canines. Angle Orthod 2002; 72(2): 95-104.
14. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Fieuws S, Willems G. Comparison of two cone beam computed tomographic systems versus panoramic imaging for localization of impacted maxillary canines and detection of root resorption. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33(1): 93-102.
15. Nemcovsky CE, Tal H, Pitaru S. Effect of non-erupted third molars on roots of approximal teeth. A radiographic, clinical and histologic study. J Oral Pathol Med 1997; 26(10): 464-9.
16. Nitzan D, Keren T, Marmary Y. Does an impacted tooth cause root resorption of the adjacent one?
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1981; 51(3): 221-4.
17. Eliasson S, Heimdahl A, Nordenram A. Pathological changes related to long-term impaction of third molars. A radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989; 18(4): 210-2.
18. Knutsson K, Brehmer B, Lysell L, Rohlin M. Pathoses associated with mandibular third molars subjected to removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Oral Endod 1996; 82(1): 10-7.
19. Yamaoka M, Furusawa K, Ikeda M, Hasegawa T. Root resorption of mandibular second molar teeth associated with the presence of the third molars. Aust Dent J 1999; 44(2): 112-6.
)