Evaluation of root-canal morphology and anatomy of maxillary second premolars using cone-beam computed tomography

Abstract

Background and Aim: Evaluation of root and canal morphology and anatomy of the teeth is essential for successful root treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the morphology and anatomy of the root canal of maxillary second premolars using the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) technique in a radiology center. Material and Methods: We used CBCT images of a specialized radiology center archived in 2014 in Qazvin and evaluated them by use of Remexis software. Evaluation of the images was carried out by a radiologist and an endodontist. The number of roots and their morphology, number of canals, the direction of root curvature, and canals in buccolingual and mesiodistal directions were assessed using the chi-square test in two genders. The significance level was considered 5%. Results: A total number of 106 CBCT involving 117-second premolar teeth were evaluated. 93.2 % of the teeth had one root and 6.8 % had two roots. There was no significant difference in the number of roots between the two sexes (Pv=0.164). According to Vertucci classification for single-rooted teeth, 59.6 % were of type I, 20.2 % of type II, 9.2 % of type III, 0.9 % of type IV, 6.4 % of type V, 1.8 % of type VI, and 1.8 % of type VII. Among two rooted second premolar teeth, 87.5 % were of type I and 12.5 % of type III. Conclusion:In maxillary second premolars, the majority of teeth had one root with type I and type II canals. During root treatment, these anatomical variations should be considered.

Effects of root canal enlargement on unprepared areas and coronal dentine thickness of three‐rooted maxillary first premolars with different root configurations: A stepwise micro‐CT study

“…In the literature, the most relevant information available about three‐rooted maxillary first premolars is their prevalence in different populations (Abella et al, 2015; Ahmad & Alenezi, 2016; Awawdeh et al, 2008; Belizzi & Hartwell, 1981; Bürklein et al, 2017; Kartal et al, 1998; Martins, Marques, Silva, Caramês, et al, 2019; Nazeer et al, 2018; Ok et al, 2014; Pécora et al, 1992; Saber et al, 2019; Sert & Bayirli, 2004; Tian et al, 2012; Tofangchiha et al, 2018; Walker, 1987) and the morphological assessment of their external and internal anatomies (Bellizzi & Hartwell, 1985; Carns & Skidmore, 1973; Hartmann et al, 2013; Marca et al, 2013; Oi et al, 2004; Soares & Leonardo, 2003; Vier‐Pelisser et al, 2010). Notwithstanding the relevance of such knowledge, there is still a lack of meaningful scientific data regarding the safe and effective requirements to prepare their challenging root canal system.…”

“…Note: Different superscript letters in the same line mean significant statistical difference amongst groups (anova post hoc Tukey test, p < .05). Tofangchiha et al, 2018;Walker, 1987) and the morphological assessment of their external and internal anatomies (Bellizzi & Hartwell, 1985;Carns & Skidmore, 1973;Hartmann et al, 2013;Marca et al, 2013;Oi et al, 2004;Soares & Leonardo, 2003;Vier-Pelisser et al, 2010).…”

“…This is an important aspect since understanding how demographic factors influence the root canal anatomy may help clinicians in anticipating the presence of complex morphologies in the clinical setting (Martins, Marques, Silva, Carames, & Versiani, 2019). Considering the highly variable internal canal configuration of maxillary first premolars, several studies have investigated their anatomy using different methods (Abella et al, 2015; Ahmad & Alenezi, 2016; Awawdeh et al, 2008; Belizzi & Hartwell, 1981; Bellizzi & Hartwell, 1985; Bürklein et al, 2017; Carns & Skidmore, 1973; Hartmann et al, 2013; Kartal et al, 1998; Marca et al, 2013; Martins, Marques, Silva, Caramês, et al, 2019; Nazeer et al, 2018; Neelakantan et al, 2011; Oi et al, 2004; Ok et al, 2014; Pécora et al, 1992; Saber et al, 2019; Soares & Leonardo, 2003; Tian et al, 2012; Tofangchiha et al, 2018; Vier‐Pelisser et al, 2010; Walker, 1987; Willershausen et al, 2006). A recent meta‐analysis revealed that the number of roots and root canals in this group of teeth varied according to the geographic region, suggesting that ethnicity may play a role in its external and internal morphologies (Martins, Marques, Silva, Caramês, et al, 2019).…”