EVALUATION OF ROOT CANAL MORPHOLOGY MOLAR TEETH AND DISTANCE BETWEEN ADDITIONAL CANALS USING CBCT
Esra Balkanlıoğlu,Zeynelabidin Şimşekyılmaz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.61139/ijdor.1517056
2024-08-05
Abstract:Background: This study was conducted to analyze the morphological variations of maxillary and mandibular molars in the Turkish population, to evaluate the distances between the additional canals vertically and horizontally, to guide clinicians by determining the distance between the canals.
Materials and Methods: The maxillary and mandibular first and second molars (a total of 50 teeth per group) were using in the study. The teeth were embedded in an arch-shaped silicone impression material. CBCT images of the teeth were recorded. Two examiners scrutinized the root canal systems and sought out any additional canals.
Results: Upper first molars; 16% had three canals, 64% had four canals and 20% had five canals. The average distance between mesiobuccal 1(mb1)-mesiobuccal 2(mb2), mesiobuccal 1(mb1)-mesiobuccal 3(mb3), and distobuccal 1(db1)-distobuccal 2(db2) was 2.35, 2.52 and 1.91 millimeters, respectively.
Upper second molars; 32% had three canals, 52% had four canals and 16% had five canals. The distance between mb1-mb2 and db1-db2 canals was 2.14 and 2.01 mm, respectively. In 16%, the mb2 canal was observed at an average depth of 0.72 mm from mb1. No significant difference was found between the number of canals and additional canals in the upper first molars and upper second molars teeth (p=0,275).
Lower first molars; Two canals were detected in 8%, three canals in 20%, four canals in 28% and five canals in 44%. While 60% of the midmesial canals merged with the mesiolingual canal, 20% merged with the mesiobuccal, and 20% terminated in separate apices. Mesiobuccal(mb)-midmesial and mesiolingual(ml)-midmesial distances were 1.81 and 1.76 mm, respectively.
Lower second molars; 4% had one canal, 8% had two canals, 60% had three canals, 28% had four canals. No midmesal canal was observed in the lower second molars. There was a significant difference between the number of teeth with three canals in the lower first molars and lower second molars teeth (p=0,00).
Conclusions: During root canal treatment, all canal access must be accurately identified. Using adequate light sources, checking the pulp floor with canal probes, strengthening the theoretical knowledge about the points where additional canals can be found can reduce the risk of missed canals.
Strengthening the theoretical knowledge of where additional canals can be found can reduce the risk of missing canals.