Prevalence of Middle Mesial Canals in the Mesial Root of First Permanent Mandibular Molars in Egyptian Population: An Invivo Cohort Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Study

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to detect the prevalence of middle mesial canals in the mesial root of first mandibular molars in Egyptian population by retrospective analysis of a large number of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Materials and Methods:A total of 1090 CBCT scans of first permanent mandibular molars were obtained from patients who visited the Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt, for various purposes. CBCT scans were searched and only 800 subjects (374 males and 426 females) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

Prevalence of middle mesial canal using cone beam computed tomography: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of MMC in females (13.961%) was significantly higher than that in males (9.798%). This result is in accordance with several studies that reported a higher prevalence of MMC in females than in males ( Bhatti et al, 2022 , Pan et al, 2019 , Roshdy and El Khodary, 2018 ).…”

“…Additionally, another study showed a 4.5% MMC prevalence in mandibular first molars ( Sajjan et al, 2021 ). In contrast, a higher prevalence of MMC in mandibular first molars was reported by several studies to vary from 10.8% to 59% ( Akbarzadeh et al, 2017 , Bhatti et al, 2022 , Hu et al, 2019 , Inaty et al, 2020 , Roshdy and El Khodary, 2018 , Senthil and Solete, 2021 , Srivastava et al, 2018 ). This could be explained by the differences in CBCT evaluators, CBCT devices used, and sample sizes included in their studies.…”

“…Two studies were excluded because the studies did not include the MMC in mesial root configuration ( Pawar et al, 2017 , Zhang et al, 2015 ), four studies were excluded because they did not state the voxel size and the CBCT machine ( Al Shehadat et al, 2019 , Babu and Anjaneyulu, 2020 , Perlea et al, 2019 , Reddy et al, 2021 ), and one study was excluded because the voxel size used in the study was more than 400 µm ( Tredoux et al, 2021 ). Finally, 28 studies were included in the meta-analysis ( Abarca et al, 2020 , Akbarzadeh et al, 2017 , Aldosimani et al, 2021 , Arayasantiparb et al, 2017 , Bhatti et al, 2022 , Demirbuga et al, 2013 , Hasheminia et al, 2021 , Hosseini et al, 2020 , Hu et al, 2019 , Inaty et al, 2020 , Kantilieraki, 2019 , Kuzekanani et al, 2020 , Ni et al, 2018 , Nur et al, 2014 , Palottil et al, 2021 , Pan et al, 2019 , Qiao et al, 2020 , Rehman et al, 2020 , Roshdy and El Khodary, 2018 , Sajjan et al, 2021 , Senthil and Solete, 2021 , Shah and Khan, 2019 , Shakeri et al, 2019 , Srivastava et al, 2018 , Tahmasbi et al, 2017 , Torres et al, 2015 , Xu et al, 2020 , Yang et al, 2020 ). The main features of the included studies are summarized in Table 1 .…”

A microcomputed tomographic analysis of the morphological variabilities and incidence of extra canals in mandibular first molar teeth in an Egyptian subpopulation

“…This could be explained by differences in sample size, microCT scanning parameters and the classification used for interpretation. Another CBCT study reported 25.6% of MMCs in mandibular first molars of Egyptians 35 . Indeed, the high accuracy of microCT scanning allows more detection of fine MMCs compared to CBCT.…”