Root and canal symmetry in the mandibular anterior teeth of patients attending a dental clinic: CBCT study Abstract: The aims of this study were to evaluate the number of roots/root canals in the mandibular anterior teeth of a Turkish population, to assess the relationship between gender or age and the frequency of two canals in a single root, and to determine the symmetry in root/root canal numbers between contralateral sides among patients. Cone-beam computed tomography images (n = 1128; 6253 teeth) taken at the Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology of the Faculty of Dentistry of Gazi University were examined by three observers and a supervisor, all of whom were blinded to patient gender and age. Axial, sagittal, and cross-sectional slices with a thickness of 1 mm were used. Numbers of roots and canals for each type of tooth were recorded. Most teeth had a single root and single root canal. Roots with two canals were more frequent in the incisors (14.9%, 17.2%, and 6.1% of the central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines, respectively). Teeth with two roots were more frequent in the canines (3.1% vs. 0% or 0.1%). Females more often had canines with double root canals (p < 0.001). When at least one tooth had two root canals, bilateral symmetry between contralateral teeth was found in 45.0%, 29.0%, and 28.0% of cases for central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines, respectively. Patients older than 56 years had fewer teeth with double root canals (p ≤ 0.001). A small proportion of the mandibular anterior teeth had two roots or root canals. Double root canals were mostly unilateral. Age and gender were associated with the number of root canals.

No abstract

Objectives: Radiological reporting is a relatively new and challenging issue in dentomaxillofacial radiology, whereas it has been performed so many years in medical radiology. The purpose of this study is to compare approaches of dentomaxillofacial and medical radiologists regarding radiology reporting. Materials and Methods: Dentomaxillofacial and medical radiologists were invited by e-mail. The participants filled a survey regarding the features of their own radiology reports. The study was based on two independent groups (dentomaxillofacial and medical radiologists). Mann-Whitney U test was used for two independent groups. Results: 285 radiologists in total (115 dentomaxillofacial and 170 medical radiologists) participated in this survey. Structured radiologic reports were mostly preferred by both dentomaxillofacial (53.9%) and medical radiologists (77%), but statistically significant difference was found between two groups (p<0.05). Although dentomaxillofacial (79.1%) and medical (81.2%) radiologists mostly reported that their own reports consisted of separate headings as clinical information, findings and conclusion, there was a statistically significant difference between two groups (p<0.05). The majority of dentomaxillofacial (99.1%) and medical (99.4%) radiologists agreed regarding radiology training programs should include radiology report construction. Conclusion: This is the first study pointing out the approaches of dentomaxillofacial radiologists about reporting. Good radiological reporting is a relatively new task for dentomaxillofacial radiologists compared to medical radiologists. This study showed that the approaches of dentomaxillofacial and medical radiologists were similar regarding radiological reports.