No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background:The success of root canal therapy requires a good knowledge of root canal morphology. Literature review shows variations in a number of roots and canal morphology in studies done across the globe.Aim:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the root canal morphology in maxillary first premolars using the clearing technique in a South Indian population.Methodology:Two hundred and twenty-five extracted noncarious, nonfractured, sound maxillary first premolars were collected, cleaned, and were injected with India ink to stain the root canals. Teeth were then decalcified and cleared using methyl salicylate. Teeth were then viewed under a stereomicroscope to evaluate the number of roots, root canal morphology based on the Vertucci's classification, variations, and additional features such as accessory root canals, lateral canals, furcation canals, isthmus, and apical delta.Results:Nearly 52.88% of maxillary first premolars were single rooted, 44.88% had two roots, and 2.22% had three roots. Vertucci's Type IV root canal configuration was the most common type in maxillary first premolars and was seen in 66.51% of cases followed by Type II in 13.4%. Type I was seen in 9.76%, Type VI in 6.51%, Type VIII in 2.32%, Type III in 0.46%, Type V in 0.46%, and Type VII in 0% of teeth.Conclusion:The majority of the maxillary first premolars included in our study were single rooted and Vertucci's Type IV was the most common type of root canal configuration.

Context: Oral and maxillofacial pathology (OMFP) is a subspecialization having a masters course in India. Due to lesser number of oral pathologists in the country, the biopsy material from the head and neck is catered to by the general pathologist. Aim: This survey was conducted to acquire responses from general pathologists and gathering knowledge on their perspective of oral pathology. Methods: Pathologists at various medical institutions and at laboratories all over Karnataka were requested to answer a questionnaire comprising 13 questions pertaining to the need and scope of oral pathology. Results: In total, 37 (57%) general pathologists completed the questionnaire, of whom 97% (36) were aware of the specialty and 30 (81%) perceived a need for it. Eleven (30%) of them referred oral biopsy specimens to oral pathologists. The most common sources of diagnostic difficulty were identified as odontogenic tumors and cysts. Twenty-six (70%) pathologists felt the need for a short-term posting for their postgraduates in oral pathology, while 28 (76%) of them expressed their opinion about considering an oral pathologist as a part of their team when diagnosing complex head and neck pathologies. Twelve (71%) of them mentioned that they sometimes found that head and neck lesions took longer time to diagnose. Conclusion: Although the utilization of OMFP specialists’ services in the state is quite low, general pathologists strongly feel the need for OMFP training as head and neck specimens form a considerable proportion of biopsies received by them.