4.0 Review

Critical analysis of a new system to classify root and canal morphology - A systematic review

Journal

AUSTRALIAN ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aej.12780

Keywords

Ahmed et al. classification; root canal anatomy; Vertucci classification; morphology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review compares the Ahmed et al. system with the Vertucci classification in classifying root and canal morphology. The results indicate that the Ahmed et al. system provides more accurate and comprehensive categorizations, particularly in complex canal anatomy. Further research is needed to evaluate its utility with other diagnostic devices, especially in molars.
A novel system to classify root and canal morphology was recently introduced (Ahmed et al. 2017). This systematic review aimed to answer the following research question: Does the Ahmed et al. system provide a more accurate and practical classification of root and canal anatomy compared to other classifications? A literature search was conducted in Google Scholar, Scopus and Wiley Online Library to identify the citation counts for the article entitled 'A new system for classifying root and root canal morphology; '. After removal of duplicates and unrelated articles, 15 studies were included and analysed. All studies compared the Ahmed et al. system with the Vertucci classification. Results revealed that both systems were able to classify simple canal configurations in single-rooted anterior and premolar teeth, disto-buccal and palatal roots of maxillary molars. However, the Ahmed et al. system provided more accurate and comprehensive categorisations of single-rooted teeth with complex canal anatomy, multi-rooted maxillary and mandibular premolars and the mesio-buccal root of maxillary molars. Further evidence on the utility of the Ahmed et al. system is required using other diagnostic devices especially in molars.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available