4.5 Article

Evaluation of Root Canal Configuration of Mandibular Molars in a Brazilian Population by Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: An In Vivo Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 39, Issue 7, Pages 849-852

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.030

Keywords

Anatomy; CBCT; mandibular molars; morphology; root canal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The aim of this study was to analyze and characterize root canal morphology of mandibular molars of the Brazilian population by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: Patients who required CBCT radiographic examinations as part of their routine examination, diagnosis, and treatment planning were enrolled in the study. A total of 460 healthy, untreated, fully developed mandibular first and second molars were included (234 first molars and 226 second molars). The following observations were recorded: (1) number of roots and their morphology, (2) number of canals per root, (3) C-shaped canals, and (4) primary variations in the morphology of the root canal systems. Results: First molars showed a higher prevalence of 2 canals in the mesial root and 1 in the distal root with 2 separate roots (74%). In the mandibular second molars, the presence of 2 separate roots with 2 canals in the mesial root and 1 canal in the distal root represented 54% of the total. In 32% of the cases, 2 separate roots with 1 canal each in the mesial and distal roots were presented. The incidence of C-shaped canals was 1.7% of first molars and 3.5% of second molars. Conclusions: A higher prevalence of 2 separate roots with 2 canals in the mesial root and 1 canal in the distal root was observed in mandibular first and second molars (74% and 54%, respectively). Also, a lower incidence of C-shaped canals and 3-rooted teeth was observed in a Brazilian population. CBCT is a clinically useful tool for endodontic diagnosis and treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available