3.8 Article

Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of root and canal morphology of mandibular premolars in a Spanish population

Journal

IMAGING SCIENCE IN DENTISTRY
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 221-227

Publisher

KOREAN ACAD ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.5624/isd.2014.44.3.221

Keywords

Bicuspid; Mandible; Anatomy; Regional; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the clinical anatomy of lower premolar roots in a Spanish population by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), correlating findings with patient gender and tooth type. Materials and Methods: Using 70 CBCT images, we evaluated 126 healthy, untreated, well-developed lower premolars. The number and morphology of roots and root canals, and the foramina number were assessed. Results for gender and tooth type were compared using the chi-squared and ANOVA tests. Results: The average length of teeth and roots was significantly higher in men (p=0.00). All 126 premolars had a single root. One canal was found in 83.3% of the premolars, with no gender or tooth type differences; Vertucci configuration types I and V were the most prevalent. The first premolars showed significantly greater variability than the second premolars (p=0.03). A single apical foramen was found in 89.7% of the premolars, with no differences by tooth type. Women had a significantly higher prevalence of two apical foramina than men (p=0.04). Some degree of curvature was observed in 65% of the premolars, with no differences by gender or tooth type. A root angle of more than 20 degrees was found in 12.98% of the premolars, without any differences by gender or tooth. Conclusion: All premolars were single-rooted. One canal had the most prevalent morphology. More variability in canal anatomy was found in the first premolars. Curvatures greater than 20 degrees were found at less than 5 mm from the apex.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available