Morphological measurements of two separate mesiobuccal canals in maxillary first molars using micro-computed tomography

Yoo, Yeon-Jee; Lee, Jong-Ki; Perinpanayagam, Hiran; Oh, Soram; Gu, Yu; Chang, Seok Woo; Shon, Won‐Jun; Lee, Woo-Cheol; Baek, Seung‐Ho; Kum, Kee‐Yeon

doi:10.1007/s00784-020-03252-1

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Degerness and Bowles 63 measured mesial and distal walls as the thinnest towards coronal portion of MB root and emphasized that the average canal wall thickness decreases for 1/3 on the distal aspect, suggesting this area as a "danger zone" for maxillary molars at the level where MB root joins the crown of the tooth. This statement corroborates findings by Yoo et al 64 pointing on distal wall as the thinnest one for both mb canals, and that dentin walls around mb1 are generally thicker than around mb2 canal, what corresponds to the results from this study.…”

Section: 2% Was Found In Saudi Arabianssupporting

confidence: 93%

Root and canal-specific features of maxillary first molars with fused roots

Beljić-Ivanović

Karadzic

2022

VOJNOSANIT PREGL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background / Aim. Maxillary first molars are one of the most challenging teeth for endodontic therapy. There are certain disparities in number of roots and canals, and canal inter-relationship within the same root, particularly in those with fused roots. The aim was to evaluate ex vivo features of roots, root canals and canal walls in maxillary first molars with fused roots. Methods. Sixty-four extracted maxillary first molars with fused roots were included for cone-beam computed tomographic and microscopic studies. Tooth dimensions at the level of pulp chamber floor, number, location and distance between orifices, number and canal morphology, canal wall thickness, and features of apical foramina were examined and measured. Results. Incidence of maxillary first molars with root fusion was 17.5%, of which 60.0% was palatal fused to disto-buccal root. At the level of pulp chamber floor bucco-palatal dimension was significantly larger with 10.4 mm than mesio-distal with 7.0 mm. Four canal orifices were detected in 65.6%, with the shortest distance of 1.95 mm between mb1 and mb2. In fused roots most frequently were two or three canals strongly correlating to the number of major apical foramina. No fusion of canals was found in fused roots. The thinnest canal wall in mesio-buccal and disto-buccal fused root was mesial with 1.25 mm, and distal with 1.31 mm, while for the palatal root the thinnest was palatal wall with 1.97 mm. Conclusion. The most frequent type of fusion was between palatal and disto-buccal root. Bucco-palatal dimension at the level of pulp chamber floor was significantly larger than mesio-distal, with the shortest inter-orifice distance between mb1 and mb2 orifice. Number of canals was either two or three, strongly coinciding with the number of major apical foramina. There was no fusion of the canals in fused roots. The thinnest canal wall was either mesial or distal.

show abstract

Section: 2% Was Found In Saudi Arabianssupporting

confidence: 93%

Root and canal-specific features of maxillary first molars with fused roots

Beljić-Ivanović

Karadzic

2022

VOJNOSANIT PREGL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Morphological features of maxillary molars such as canal configurations, intercanal communications, isthmuses, abrupt curvatures and apical ramifications have been continuously studied [9, 13, 15] because they often constitute a major obstacle for proper canal negotiation, shaping and filling. In this group of teeth, it has been also well documented the existence of a concave area located at the distal aspect of the MB root, under the furcation level, in which the root wall dentine is consistently thin, named danger zone [8, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20]. This area is more pronounced in the presence of the MB2 canal because of the asymmetrical shape of the MB root [8, 14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This area is more pronounced in the presence of the MB2 canal because of the asymmetrical shape of the MB root [8,14]. Studies using micro-CT technology revealed that, depending on the root level, dentine thickness at the distal aspect of the MB root may vary from 0.57 to 1.86 mm in the MB2 [14,16,19,20] and from 0.91 to 2.19 mm in the MB1 [14,20] canals. Based on these features, different approaches have been proposed by some authors for shaping the MB1 and the MB2 canals [12,21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of the progressive taper enlargement of buccal root canals of three‐rooted maxillary molars: A stepwise micro‐CT study

Barbosa,

de Lima,

Antunes

et al. 2023

Aust Endodontic J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated unprepared canal areas, volume of dentine removal, and dentine thickness after the progressive enlargement of the buccal canals of 22 maxillary molars, with and without the MB2, using instruments with the same tip size (0.25 mm) but 4 different tapers (0.03, 0.05, 0.06 and 0.08 v). Micro‐CT scans were performed after each instrument. Data were compared using a general linear mixed model post hoc comparisons with Kenward‐Roger for Wald F tests (α = 5%). After each treatment step, it was observed an increase in the percentage volume of removed dentine and a decrease in the unprepared areas and dentine thickness at the pericervical region of all canals (p < 0.05). The percentage reduction of dentine thickness in MB2 canal was higher than in the mesiobuccal and distobuccal canals (p < 0.05). Knowledge of pre‐operative dimensions and dentine thickness before enlargement of buccal canals of maxillary molars is an important factor to avoid excessive dentine removal.

show abstract

“…In mandibular molars, the entire furcal surface of mesial root canal walls has been described as a danger zone, while the thinnest dentine walls were mostly detected 4.5 mm apical from the orifice (De‐Deus et al, 2019; Keles et al, 2019). The knowledge regarding the danger zone in maxillary molars are more limited than that of the mandibular molars and most of the studies focused only on mesiobuccal root (Ordinola‐Zapata et al, 2019; Yoo et al, 2020). This study measured the dentine thickness at each milimeter along the canals including distobuccal and mesiobuccal roots.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The manuscript of this ex vivo micro‐CT study has been written according to Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory Studies in Endodontology 2021 guidelines (Nagendrababu et al, 2021). The sample size was determined based on the effect size calculated from a previous study comparing dentine thicknesses in maxillary molars using micro‐CT (Yoo et al, 2020), with an alpha‐type error of 0.05 and a power beta of 0.90 (G*Power 3.1 for Mac. ; Heinrich Heine, Universitat Dusseldorf) and 10 specimens per group were indicated as the minimum sample size to observe the same effect.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dentine thickness in maxillary fused molars depends on the fusion type: An ex vivo micro‐computed tomography study

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The present study aimed to determine and compare the dentine thickness around the root canals of maxillary molars with fusion using micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT). Methodology A total of 120 fused maxillary molars having more than a single canal with distinct canal orifices near the cementoenamel junction were selected from a pool of extracted maxillary molars, which were scanned on a micro‐CT device (SkyScan 1172, Bruker‐microCT). The minimum dentine thickness around the root canals in furcal direction was measured using CTAn software (v.1.18.8 Bruker‐microCT) at each millimetre. The specimens were grouped according to their fusion type, and dentine thickness around the canals was compared. The data were statistically analysed using anova and post hoc Tukey–Kramer tests following an assessment of the normality of their distribution with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p < .05). Results Dentine thickness showed a statistically significant decrease at 2 mm apical to the orifice level irrespective of fusion type. The minimum dentine thickness values were detected around the second mesiobuccal canal as 0.30 mm at 6 mm below orifice. Dentine thickness around the mesiobuccal canal was significantly greater in fusion type 1 than those of types 2 and 3 (p < .05), while those of distobuccal and palatal canals were significantly thinner in type 3 fusion compared with type 1 or 6 (pDentine thickness showed a statistically significant decrease at 2 mm apical to the orifice level irrespective of fusion type. The minimum dentine thickness values were detected around the second mesiobuccal canal as 0.30 mm at 6 mm below orifice. Dentine thickness around the mesiobuccal canal was significantly greater in fusion type 1 than those of types 2 and 3 ( Conclusion Minimum dentine thickness values at the danger zone of distobuccal and palatal canals change according to the fusion type in fused maxillary second molars.

show abstract

Morphological measurements of two separate mesiobuccal canals in maxillary first molars using micro-computed tomography

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Root and canal-specific features of maxillary first molars with fused roots

Root and canal-specific features of maxillary first molars with fused roots

Effect of the progressive taper enlargement of buccal root canals of three‐rooted maxillary molars: A stepwise micro‐CT study

Dentine thickness in maxillary fused molars depends on the fusion type: An ex vivo micro‐computed tomography study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About