Root form and morphology of human permanent maxillary first premolars of an Indo-Dravidian population based in southern India: An in vitro study

Abstract

A BSTRACT Aim: The aim of this study was to analyze root form and morphology of human maxillary first permanent premolars of an Indo-Dravidian population from southern India. Materials and Methods: Eight hundred and twenty-two maxillary first permanent premolars were cleansed and stored appropriately. Morphology and root form analysed, segregated into Groups (Gps): Gp I, Gp II, and Gp III, and later divided into subgroups (SGs) based on specific criteria. Gp I was divided into two SGs: SG A (minimal or absence of grooving in the root) ( n = 252) and SG B (clear and defined longitudinal groove in the root) ( n = 104), and Gp II was divided into SG C (roots dividing in coronal one-third) ( n = 154), SG D (roots dividing in the middle one-third) ( n = 158), and SG E (roots dividing in the apical one third) ( n = 138). Gp III consisted of only one SG F (teeth with three roots) ( n = 16). The groups were analyzed separately, their external root form and morphology were recorded. Root form was analyzed, and results were tabulated. This study was compared with other studies and statistically analyzed. Results: Gp II was common with an incidence of 54.74%. Gp I was the next most common with an incidence of 43.3%. Gp III was the least common with an incidence of 1.94%. The number and distribution of roots was also computed. Six types of root form were identified (Type [Ty] A = 30.65%, Ty B = 12.65%, Ty C = 18.73%, Ty D = 19.22%, Ty E = 16.78%, and Ty F = 1.94%). Conclusion: Awareness and assessment of root form, number preoperatively with regard to specific populations before initiation will pave way for successful outcome of therapy.

Visual inspection of root patterns and radiographic estimation of its canal configurations by confirmation using sectioning method. An ex vivo study on maxillary first premolar teeth

“…The result showed a higher incidence of separated two-roots than fused two-roots. Unfortunately, many studies did not mention the details of the two roots, whether they were fused or separate [5,27,36,38,47,48], but a survey by Rwenyonyi et al [46] showed a close result with our study. Meanwhile, a study by Loh et al [43], Gupta et al [27], and Senan et al [35] showed that the fused two-roots had a higher incidence than the separated two-roots in Singapore, north India, and Yemen population, respectively.…”

“…Similar results were found in previous studies conducted in Saudi Arabian subpopulations, Jordanian population, and Turkish populations, which also observed a higher prevalence of two roots followed by one root than three roots [19,28,[37][38][39][40]. Some studies showed results that were near to our findings regarding the prevalence of the number of roots with a slight variation in the percentage of the number of roots, like the studies that have been conducted in Saudi, North America, Andalusia, Singapore, Turkey, Poland, Ugandan, San Sebastian, southern India, and Australia population [5,17,21,[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]..On the contrary, studies in the Shandong Chinese population showed a higher prevalence of one-rooted than two-rooted maxillary first premolar [6,49]. Other studies also contradict our study, which has been done in north India, Yemen, Seri Lankan, Japan, China, Brazil, and the Iranian population [27,35,36].…”