2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the Root Canal Morphology of Molars by Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography in a Brazilian Population: Part I

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
27
0
7

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
4
27
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…The same evidence is available for Vertucci type II results because Chinese studies show a prevalence of 1.7% (51) and 5.6% (50), whereas in predominantly white countries the prevalence of these morphologies was 5.0% in Belgium (6), 27.4% in Italy (45), 38.6% in Brazil (52), and 51.3% in Spain (11). The findings mentioned for the mesial root of mandibular first molars can be extended to second molars and are in agreement with the current literature (9,11,45,52).…”
Section: Clinical Researchsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The same evidence is available for Vertucci type II results because Chinese studies show a prevalence of 1.7% (51) and 5.6% (50), whereas in predominantly white countries the prevalence of these morphologies was 5.0% in Belgium (6), 27.4% in Italy (45), 38.6% in Brazil (52), and 51.3% in Spain (11). The findings mentioned for the mesial root of mandibular first molars can be extended to second molars and are in agreement with the current literature (9,11,45,52).…”
Section: Clinical Researchsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The results of our research were similar: men had second canals more frequently than women, but these results were significant only in lateral incisors. Collectively, we found that observations in different groups of teeth have yielded different results [7,21,24,34,35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The characteristics of included studies are presented in Table . A total of 65 studies ( n = 23,846 teeth), including our original study, were considered eligible and were included in the meta‐analysis (Skidmore and Bjorndal, ; Pineda and Kuttler, ; Reichart and Metah, ; Vertucci, ; Walker and Quackenbush, ; Walker, ; Weine et al, ; Fabra‐Campos, ; Yew and Chan, ; Calişkan et al, ; Prakashchandra and Reddy, ; Kartal and Cimilli, ; Zaatar et al, ; Guerisoli et al, ; Sperber and Moreau, ; al‐Nazhan, ; Sidow et al, ; Gulabivala et al, ; Wasti et al, ; Duda et al, ; Sert and Bayirli, ; Sert et al, ; Zhang et al, ; Jung et al, ; von Arx, ; Ahmed et al, ; Peiris, ; Tu et al, ; Pattanshetti et al, ; Peiris et al, ; Rahimi et al, ; Al‐Qudah and Awawdeh, ; Chen et al, ; Rwenyonyi et al, ; Schäfer et al, ; Gu et al, ; Huang et al, ; Neelakantan et al, ; Wang et al, ; Bahammam and Bahammam, ; Cosić, ; Demirbuga et al, ; Jang et al, ; Silva et al, ; Khan et al, ; Lima et al, ; Caputo et al, ; Celikten et al, ; Kim et al, ; Min et al, ; Monsarrat et al, ; Wolf et al, ; Madani et al, ; Martins et al, ; Mohammadzadeh et al, ; Pawar et al, ; Pekiner et al, ; Pérez‐Heredia et al, ). There were 32 imaging studies, 31 cadaveric studies, and two intraoperative studies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%