4.7 Review

Root and Root Canal Configuration Characterization Using Microcomputed Tomography: A Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092287

Keywords

dental anatomy; dental pulp; dental diagnostic imaging; endodontics; morphology; Micro-CT; root; root canal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review analyzed the literature on root canal morphology using advanced micro-computed tomography. A total of 18 studies were included, covering different types of teeth and classification systems.
This systematic review's objective was to conduct a complete analysis of the literature on the root canal morphology using advanced micro-computed tomography. The electronic web databases PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane were examined for research papers concerning the chosen keywords, evaluating the root canal morphology using Micro-CT, published up to 2021. The articles were searched using MeSH keywords and searched digitally on four specialty journal websites. DARE2 extended (Database of Attributes of Reviews of Effects) was used to assess bias risk. The information was gathered from 18 published studies that strictly met the criteria for inclusion. In the included studies, a total of 6696 samples were studied. The studies were conducted on either maxillary (n-2222) or mandibular teeth (n-3760), permanent anteriors (n-625), and Third molars (n-89). To scan samples, a Scanco Medical machine in was used in 10 studies, Bruker Micro-CT in 34, and seven other machines were utilized in the rest. Bruker Micro-CT software from Kontich, Belgium, VG-Studio Max 2.2 software from Volume Graphics, Heidelberg, Germany, was the most commonly used software. The minimum Voxel size (resolution) adopted in the included studies was 11.6 mu m. However, 60 mu m was the maximum. Most studies classified the root canal morphology using Vertucci's classification system (n-16) and the four-digit system (n-6).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available