International Journal of Dentistry

International Journal of Dentistry / 2018 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 2615746 | 6 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2615746

A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scanning of the Root Canal System of Permanent Teeth among the Moscow Population

Academic Editor: Gianrico Spagnuolo
Received01 Mar 2018
Accepted29 May 2018
Published25 Sep 2018

Abstract

Background. Successful endodontic treatment requires a significant knowledge of root canal anatomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the root and root canal number of permanent teeth among the Moscow population using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning. Materials and methods. 300 CBCT images of subjects were analyzed to study the anatomy of roots and root canal system of each tooth. The collected data were analyzed using IBM SPSS statistics software 22.0 version. Results. The maxillary incisors and canines had one root with one canal in 100%. Maxillary premolars had one root with one or two canals and two roots with two canals, while mandibular premolars were single-rooted with one or two canals. Maxillary first and second molar had three separated roots, and the prevalence of four canals was more often in first molars. Mandibular molars had two roots with different number of canals. Conclusion. The root canal system varies greatly among populations and even in different individuals within the same population; thus, using CBCT scanning is an effective technique in investigating the root canal system.

1. Background

The success of endodontic treatment depends on the precise knowledge of root and root canal anatomy, which is an important challenge due to the complexity of the root canal system and the anatomical variations [1, 2]. This knowledge helps the clinicians in endodontic treatment planning and decreases the percent of endodontic treatment failure. Many studies have been conducted to determine the anatomy and morphology of root canal system using different techniques [39]. Recently, with the development of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) technique, it became possible to study the anatomy of teeth, due to the high-quality three-dimensional (3D) images obtained from CBCT. This image allows studying the anatomy of the jaws, the morphology of teeth, and their root canal system [3]. Many studies have used this technique to find out the anatomy of root canal system especially in the molar regions [3, 6, 8].

Root canal morphology has been classified using different ways by several investigators in the literature [1012]. Weine et al. [12] classified it into four types depending on the pattern of division of the main root canal of a tooth along its course from the floor of the pulp chamber to the root apex. Vertucci [10] also classified the root canal morphology in a more descriptive manner into eight types. This classification has been widely used by many researchers to classify the canal system of different teeth.

It is known that the number of teeth roots and the anatomy of root canal system vary among the world population, and to date, there are still no studies about the anatomy of roots and root canals in Russian Federation, where dental practitioners still use the data obtained from foreign authors on the anatomy of root canals in planning the endodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the anatomy of root and root canal system among the Moscow population using CBCT technique.

2. Materials and Methods

300 subjects aged 20–70 years were enrolled in this study, from those attending the diagnostic center (LLC Zolotoye Secheniye) for 3D radiological scanning in the period between January 2017 and November 2017. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee in People’s Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia. A written consent was signed by all subjects, including who participated in this study. CBCT images were taken using a 3D eXam® dental tomography scanner (KaVo, Biberach, Germany) with standard exposure settings (23 ∗ 17 cm field of view; 0.3 mm voxel size; 110 kv; 1.6–20 s) and were viewed by three examiners in a semidark room using I-CAT viewer software (version 10, Hatfield, England). All teeth were evaluated in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes, and the number of roots and the number of canals in each tooth were recorded. The presence of additional canals especially in the molar regions was recorded.

2.1. Statistical Analysis

Data were processed using the software (SPSS v 22 for win, IBM, Chicago, IL), and descriptive data were processed to analyze the percentage of roots and root canals in each tooth.

3. Results

300 CBCT scans of 300 subjects with mean age of 49.91 ± 14.01 were analyzed. All the maxillary incisors had one root with 100% and one canal with 100%. First and second maxillary molars had three roots with 100%, and third molar recorded one root in 33.7% and three roots in 47.9%. Data for maxillary teeth including the number of roots and root canals are shown in (Table 1).


ToothNumber of studied teethRoots (%)Canals (%)

Central incisor5101510 (100%)1510 (100%)
Lateral incisor5001500 (100%)1500 (100%)
Canine5401540 (100%)1540 (100%)
First premolar460140 (8.7%)128 (6.1%)
212 (2.6%)
2420 (91.3%)2420 (91.3%)
Second premolar4231112 (26.5%)175 (17.7%)
237 (8.8%)
2311 (73.5%)2311 (73.5%)
First molar4103410 (100%)3163 (39.7%)
4245 (59.8%)
52 (0.5%)
Second molar4353435 (100%)3210 (48.3%)
4224 (51.5%)
51 (0.2%)
Third molar2381114 (47.9%)133 (13.8%)
228 (11.8%)
353 (22.3%)
3124 (52.1%)3119 (50%)
45 (2.1%)

For mandibular teeth, data were the following: central and lateral incisors and canines showed one root and one canal in 99.4%, 99.2%, and 99.8%, respectively. First molars had two roots in 100%, and second molars had one root in 0.5% and two roots in 99.5%. Data for mandibular teeth are shown in (Table 2).


ToothNumber of studied teethRoots (%)Canals (%)

Central incisor5121512 (100%)1509 (99.4%)
23 (0.6%)
Lateral incisor5001500 (100%)1496 (99.2%)
24 (0.8%)
Canine5211521 (100%)1520 (99.8%)
1 (0.2%)
First premolar4901490 (100%)1437 (89.2%)
253 (10.8%)
Second premolar4431442 (99.8%)1399 (90.1%)
243 (9.7%)
21 (0.2%)21(0.2%)
First molar4072407 (100%)22 (0.5%)
3320 (78.6%)
485 (20.9%)
Second molar39812 (0.5%)22 (0.5%)
2396 (99.5%)247 (11.8%)
3327 (82.2%)
422 (5.5%)
Third molar210142 (20%)11 (0.5 %)
241 (19.5%)
2168 (80%)245 (21.4%)
3123 (58.6%)

4. Discussion

The knowledge of the anatomy of the root canal system is the gold standard in successful endodontic treatment, and studying root and canal morphology has endodontic and anthropological significance. This study evaluated the roots and root canal system among the Moscow population using CBCT scanning. The advantages of CBCT scanning are its high accuracy, minimal distortion, and 3D visualization. Moreover, it is a nondestructive technique and can provide specific data [3].

When analyzing the anatomy of the maxillary anterior teeth, 510 central incisors, 500 lateral incisors, and 540 canines were recorded, and one root with one canal was identified in 100% of cases. These data are comparable with the results obtained from other studies on the anatomy of central incisors in USA [10], Mexico [11], Turkey [13], and Chennai urban [14]. The presence of two canals in lateral incisors was found in 13.7% of cases in a study by Calişkan et al. (Turkey) [13], in 9.5% of cases by Sert and BayirliIn (Turkey) [15], and in 2% in a study by Jain et al. (Chennai urban) [14]. The prevalence of two canals in canines was 3.9%, 2–4%, 4%, and 18.4% in studies by Calişkan et al. [13], Sert and Bayirli [15], Jain et al. [14], and Amardeep et al. [16] respectively. This difference in results could be attributed to the evaluation method, sample size, and racial differences.

According to the current study, the anatomy of root canals of maxillary first premolar was variable, two roots were identified in 91.3% of cases and 8.7% of cases were one rooted, and the first premolar recorded one root and two canals in 2.6% and one canal in 6.1% of cases. Similar data obtained in the studies of Bulut et al. (Turkey) [17], Pecora et.al. (Brazil) [18], Kerekes and Tronstad (Norway) [19], Green [20] (USA), Ok et al. (Turkey) [21], and Burklein et.al. (Germany) [22]. Pineda and Kuttler (Mexico) [11] have revealed in their studies a single-canal first premolar in 50.1% and two canals in 49.4% of cases.

The maxillary second premolar with one root was determined in 26.5% of observations and with two separated roots in 73.5% of cases according to the data of the current study, and two canals were recorded in 73.5% of cases. This coincides with the results of Awawdeh et al. (Jordan) [23], where one canal was found in 13.8% and 84.1% had two canals; the results of Elnour et al. (Saudi Arabia) [24], where two canals were recorded in 65% of cases; and the results of Bürklein et al. (Germany) [22], where 56.3% of cases had two canals. Bulut et al. (Turkey) [17] recorded one canal in 82.1% of the cases and two canals in 17.8%.

The maxillary first molar was analyzed by all researchers in detail by the number of canals in each root. Three separated roots were identified in 100% of cases. The number of canals varied from 3 to 5. The four-canal root system occurred in 59.8% of cases, and the localization of the two canals takes place more often in the mesiobuccal root (MB) and also occurred in the distobuccal root (DB). These results are comparable with the results of Pomeranz and Fishelberg (USA) [25], where 48% of cases had two canals in MB. Wasti et al. (Pakistan) [26] recorded a percent of two canals in MB in 43.4%, and Pineda and Kuttler (Mexico) [11] defined two canals in 48.5% of cases. This significantly varies from the results of Imura et al. (Japan) [27], where 88.2% of cases had two canals in the MB, and of Kim et al. (Korea) [8], where two canals in MB were found in 63.59% and 1.25% in DB. Ghoncheh et al. (Iran) [28], Martins et al. (Caucasian population) [29], Ratanajirasut et al. (Thai) [30], Silva et al. (Brazil) [31], and Guo et al. (North America) [32] recorded four-canal system in 46%, 71%, 63.6%, 42.63%, and 68.2% of cases, respectively. Ceperuelo et al. (Spain) [33] defined four-canal system in 92.3% of cases.

The maxillary second molar consisted of three separated roots in 100% of cases, and the prevalence of four canal systems was identified in 51.5% of cases (two canals in MB). This agreed with the published studies of Shalabi et al. (Ireland) 50% [34], Kulild and Peters (USA) 45.8% [35], Alavi et al. (Thailand) 44.6% [36], Kim et al. (Korea) 34.39% [8], Martins et al. (Caucasian population) 44% [29], and Ratanajirasut et al. (Thai) 29.4% [30] of the prevalence of two canals in MB. Ghoncheh et al. (Iran) [28], Silva et al. (Brazil) [31], Ceperuelo et al. (Spain) [33], Betancourt et al. (Chili) [37], Al-Fouzan et al. (Saudi Arabia) [38], and Li et al. (China) [39] reported 14%, 32%, 75%, 48%, 19.7%, and 41.3%, respectively, of the prevalence of MB2 in maxillary second molar.

The maxillary third molar in our study was defined as single-rooted in 47.9% and three-rooted in 52.1%, and the system of root canals could consist of one, two, three, or more canals as shown in (Table 1). Similar results were found in a study of Sidow et al. (USA) [40], in which, it was found 15% of third molars had one root and 45% had three roots, and the number of canals ranged from 1 to 6 in teeth with one root and 2 to 5 in teeth with 3 roots. A study by Tomaszewska et al. (Poland) [41] reported the one-rooted maxillary third molar in 38.5% of cases and 61.5% were three-rooted. The prevalence of one, three, and four canals were 23.1%, 46.1%, and 15.4%, respectively. Singh and Pawar (India) [42] found three-canal system of maxillary third molar in 43% of cases and four-canal system in 5%.

In this study, for mandibular teeth, it was identified in central and lateral incisors and canines, one canal in 99.4%, 99.2%, and 99.8%, respectively, and two canals in 0.6%, 0.8%, and 0.2% of cases, respectively. These findings are consistent with other studies, where one canal was recorded in central incisors in 99.7% in Madeira and Hetem (Brazil) [43] and 99% in Walker (China) [44]. For lateral incisors, studies have reported the presence of 2 canals in 1.3% (Mexico) [11], 0.8% (Brazil) [43], and 1% (China) [44]. The presence of 2 canals in canines was 20.48% and 20.4% in studies by Rahimi et al. (Iran) [45] and Amardeep et al. (India) [16].

The mandibular first premolar was found as single-rooted in 100% of cases. One canal was found in 89.2%, and two canals in 10.8% of cases. This coincides with the results of Bulut (Turkey) [17], in which 1 canal was recorded in 94.2%, Llena et al. (Spain) [46], Alhadainy (Egypt) [47], and Sobhani et al. (Iran) [48], and one canal was found in 78.1%, 61.2%, and 90.8%, respectively. The presence of 2 canals was recorded by Zillich and Dowson (USA) [49] in 18.9%, Abraham and Gopinath (Emirate) [50] 35 %, Dou et al. (china) [51] with 34.27%, Bürklein et al. (Germany) [22] with 21.9%, and Singh and Pawar (India) [52] with 22%.

The mandibular second premolar had one root in 99.8%, and it had two roots in one clinical case (0.2%). When analyzing the root canal system, two canals were defined in 9.7% of cases. Similar data were found in studies by Bulut et al. (Turkey) [17] and Llena et al. (Spain) [46] with 98.9% and 90.6%, respectively, for the prevalence of one canal. Al-Qudah and Awawdeh (Jordan) [53], Bürklein et al. (Germany) [22], Bolhari et al. (Iran) [54], and Singh and Pawar (India) [52] recorded the prevalence of 2 canals in 22.8%, 3.6%, 8.7%, and 42% of cases, respectively.

The mandibular first molar had two roots in 100% of the cases. And, the anatomy of the root canal system could be two-canal, three-canal, and four-canal. Most often, there are three canals in 78.6% of observations. Similar data were found in Vertucci (USA) 59% [10], Pineda and Kuttler (Mexico) 57% [11], Celikten (Turkey) 84.6% [55], of cases of three-canal first molars. Skidmore and Bjorndal (USA) [56] have revealed 55.5% of cases. Zhang et al. (China) [57] recorded 56% and Caputo et al. (Brazil) [58] recorded 75.1% of cases of three-canals in mandibular first molars. The four-canal system of the first molar was defined in our study in 20.9% of cases; it was also described in the literature by Wasti et al. (Pakistan) [26] in 43.3% of cases, Caputo et al. (Brazil) [58] in 23.7%, Hung et al. (Taiwan) [59] in 40.5%, Celikten et al. (Turkey) [55] in 10.4%, Al-Qudah and Awawdeh (Jordan) [60] in 45.8%, and Pattanshetti et al. (Kuwait) [61] in 46.4%.

When analyzing the structure of the root canal system of the mandibular second molar, it was defined to be a two-, three-, and four-canal systems. 82.2% of cases had three canals. The most similar data were found in Celikten et al. (Turkey) [55], where 85.9% of three canals were recorded, and Neelakantan et al. (India) [62], in which most of second molars had two roots with three canals in 87.8%. Zhang et al. (China) [57] and Pawar et al. (India) [63] defined 3-canal system in 46% and 35.5% of cases.

The mandibular third molar was revealed as two-rooted in most cases (80%), and the canal system could have two- and three-canals, and these results agreed with other studies of the anatomy of third molar, as in Kuzekanani et al. (Iran) [64] where 73% of cases had 2 roots, and a study by Sidow et al. (USA) [40], where 77% of two roots were defined.

5. Conclusions

The root canal system varies greatly among populations and regions and even in different individuals within the same population, and using CBCT scanning is an effective technique in investigating the root canal system.

Abbreviations

CBCT:Cone-beam computed tomography
3D:Three-dimensional
MB:Mesiobuccal root
DB:Distobuccal root.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The publication has been prepared with the support of the “RUDN University Program 5-100.”

References

  1. S. Rahimi and N. Ghasemi, “Maxillary first molar with two root canals,” Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 346–349, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. V. S. Blinov, M. V. Kartashov, S. E. Zholudev, and O. S. Zornikova, “Estimation of the cone-beam computed tomography in diagnostics of the molar root system anatomy of the mandible and maxilla,” Radiology—Practice, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 6–15, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  3. S. Patel, C. Durack, F. Abella, H. Shemesh, M. Roig, and K. Lemberg, “Cone beam computed tomography in Endodontics—a review,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 3–15, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. V. V. Aliamovskii, O. A. Levenets, and A. A. Levenets, “Multiple anatomical variations of structure molars maxilla,” Endodontology Today, no. 4, pp. 22–25, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  5. Y. A. Makedonova, I. V. Firsova, S. V. Poroyskyi, N. N. Trigolos, and E. B. Marymova, “Clinical-Radiological features of the structure of the tooth cavity and root canals of the upper,” Contemporary Problems of Science and Education, no. 1, p. 1308, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  6. T. C. Blattner, N. George, C. C. Lee, V. Kumar, and C. D. Yelton, “Efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography as a modality to accurately identify the presence of second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary first and second molars: a pilot study,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 867–870, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. J. Martos, C. Lubian, L. F. Silveria, L. A. Suita de Castro, and C. M. Ferrer Luque, “Morphologic analysis of the root apex in human teeth,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 664–667, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. Y. Kim, S. J. Lee, and J. Woo, “Morphology of maxillary first and second molars analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography in a Korean population: variations in the number of roots and canals and the incidence of fusion,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1063–1068, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. M. Iqbal and E. Fillmore, “Preoperative predictors of number of root canals clinically detected in maxillary molars: a pennendo database study,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 413–416, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. F. J. Vertucci, “Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 589–599, 1984. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. F. Pineda and Y. Kuttler, “Mesiodistal and buccolingual roentgenographic investigation of 7,275 root canals,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 101–110, 1972. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. F. S. Weine, H. J. Healey, H. Gerstein, and L. Evanson, “Canal configuration in the mesiobuccal root of the maxillary first molar and its endodontic significance,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 419–425, 1969. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. M. K. Calişkan, Y. Pehlivan, F. Sepetcioǧlu, M. Türkün, and S. Ş. Tuncer, “Root canal morphology of human permanent teeth in a Turkish population,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 200–204, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. P. Jain, S. Balasubramanian, J. Sundaramurthy, and V. Natanasabapathy, “A cone beam computed tomography of the root canal morphology of maxillary anterior teeth in an institutional-based study in Chennai urban population: an in vitro study,” Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 68–74, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. S. Sert and G. S. Bayirli, “Evaluation of the root canal configurations of the mandibular and maxillary permanent teeth by gender in the Turkish population,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 391–398, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. N. S. Amardeep, S. Raghu, and V. Natanasabapathy, “Root canal morphology of permanent maxillary and mandibular canines in Indian population using cone beam computed tomography,” Anatomy Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 731859, 7 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. D. G. Bulut, E. Kose, G. Ozcan, A. E. Sekerci, E. M. Canger, and Y. Sisman, “Evaluation of root morphology and root canal configuration of premolars in the Turkish individuals using cone beam computed tomograpy,” European Journal of Dentistry, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 551–557, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. J. D. Pecora, P. C. Saquy, M. D. Sousa Neto, and J. B. Woelfel, “Root form and root canal anatomy of maxillary first premolars,” Brazilian Dental Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 87–94, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  19. K. Kerekes and L. Tronstad, “Morphometric observations on root canals of human premolars,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 74–79, 1977. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. D. Green, “Double canals in single roots,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 689–696, 1973. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. E. Ok, M. Altunsoy, B. G. Nur, O. S. Aglarci, M. Çolak, and E. Güngör, “A cone-beam computed tomography study of root canal morphology of maxillary and mandibular premolars in a Turkish population,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 701–706, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. S. Bürklein, R. Heck, and E. Schäfer, “Evaluation of the root canal anatomy of maxillary and mandibular premolars in a selected German population using cone-beam computed tomographic data,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1448–1452, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. L. A. Awawdeh, H. Abdullah, and A. A. Al-Qudah, “Root form and canal morphology of Jordanian maxillary first premolars,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 956–961, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. Elnour, A. Khabeer, and E. AlShwaimi, “Evaluation of root canal morphology of maxillary second premolars in a Saudi Arabian sub-population: an in vitro microcomputed tomography study,” Saudi Dental Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 162–168, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. H. Pomeranz and G. Fishelberg, “The secondary mesiobuccal canal of maxillary molars,” Journal of the American Dental Association, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 119–124, 1974. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. F. Wasti, A. C. Shearer, and N. H. F. Wilson, “Root canal systems of the mandibular and maxillary first permanent molar teeth of south Asian Pakistanis,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 263–266, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. N. Imura, G. I. Hata, and T. Toda, “Two canals in mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 410–414, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  28. Z. Ghoncheh, B. M. Zade, and M. J. Kharazifard, “Root morphology of the maxillary first and second molars in an Iranian population using cone beam computed tomography,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 115–122, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  29. J. N. R. Martins, D. Marques, A. Mata, and J. Caramês, “Root and root canal morphology of the permanent dentition in a Caucasian population: a cone-beam computed tomography study,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 1013–1026, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. R. Ratanajirasut, A. Panichuttra, and S. Panmekiate, “A Cone-beam computed tomographic study of root and canal morphology of maxillary first and second permanent molars in a Thai population,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 56–61, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. E. J. Silva, Y. Nejaim, A. I. Silva, F. Haiter-Neto, A. A. Zaia, and N. Cohenca, “Evaluation of root canal configuration of maxillary molars in a Brazilian population using cone-beam computed tomographic imaging: an in vivo study,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 173–176, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. J. Guo, A. Vahidnia, P. Sedghizadeh, and R. Enciso, “Evaluation of root and canal morphology of maxillary permanent first molars in a north American population by cone-beam computed tomography,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 635–639, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. D. Ceperuelo, M. Lozano, F. D. Sindreu, and M. Mercadé, “Root canal morphology of Chalcolithic and early bronze age human populations of El MiradorCave (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain),” Anatomical Record, vol. 297, no. 12, pp. 2342–2348, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. R. M. A. Shalabi, O. E. Omer, J. Glennon, M. Jennings, and N. M. Claffey, “Root canal anatomy of maxillary first and second permanent molars,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 405–414, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. J. C. Kulild and D. D. Peters, “Incidence and configuration of canal systems in the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first and second molars,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 311–317, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. A. M. Alavi, A. Opasanon, Y. L. Ng, and K. Gulabivala, “Root and canal morphology of Thai maxillary molars,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 478–485, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. P. Betancourt, P. Navarro, M. Cantin, and R. Fuentes, “Cone-beam computed tomography study of prevalence and location of MB2canal in the mesiobuccal root of the maxillary second molar,” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 9128–9134, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  38. K. S. Al-Fouzan, H. F. Ounis, K. Merdad, and K. Al-Hezaimi, “Incidence of canal systems in the mesio-buccal roots of maxillary first and second molarsin Saudi Arabian population,” Australian Endodontic Journal, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 98–101, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. L. Li, F. L. Zhan, and Y. W. Jin, “Preliminary study on root canal morphology of maxillary second molars,” Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 179–183, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  40. S. J. Sidow, L. A. West, F. R. Liewehr, and R. J. Loushine, “Root canal morphology of human maxillary and mandibular third molars,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 675–678, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. I. M. Tomaszewska, B. Leszczyński, A. Wróbel, T. Gładysz, and H. F. Duncan, “A micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) analysis of the root canal morphology of maxillary third molar teeth,” Annals of Anatomy—Anatomischer Anzeiger, vol. 215, pp. 83–92, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. S. Singh and M. Pawar, “Root canal morphology of south Asian Indian maxillary molar teeth,” European Journal of Dentistry, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 133–144, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. M. C. Madeira and S. Hetem, “Incidence of bifurcations in mandibular incisors,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 589–591, 1973. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. R. T. Walker, “The root canal anatomy of mandibular incisors in a southern Chinese population,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 218–223, 1988. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. S. Rahimi, A. S. Milani, S. Shahi, Y. Sergiz, S. Nezafati, and M. Lotfi, “Prevalence of two root canals in human mandibular anterior teeth in an Iranian population,” Indian Journal of Dental Research, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 234–236, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. C. Llena, J. Fernandez, P. S. Ortolani, and L. Forner, “Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of root and canal morphology of mandibular premolars in a Spanish population,” Imaging Science in Dentistry, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 221–227, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. H. A. Alhadainy, “Canal configuration of mandibular first premolars in an Egyptian population,” Journal of Advanced Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 123–128, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. M. A. Sobhani, H. Razmi, and M. Sadegh, “Evaluation of anatomy and morphology of human mandibular premolar teeth by cone-beam computed tomography in Iranian population,” Journal of Dental Medicine, vol. 26, no. 3, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  49. R. Zillich and J. Dowson, “Root canal morphology of mandibular first and second premolars,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 738–744, 1973. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. S. B. Abraham and V. K. Gopinath, “Root canal anatomy of mandibular first premolars in an Emirati subpopulation: a laboratory study,” European Journal of Dentistry, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 476–482, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. L. Dou, D. Li, T. Xu, Y. Tang, and D. Yang, “Root anatomy and canal morphology of mandibular first premolars in a Chinese population,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 750, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. S. Singh and M. Pawar, “Root canal morphology of south Asian Indian mandibular premolar teeth,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1338–1341, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. A. A. Al-Qudah and L. A. Awawdeh, “Root form and canal morphology of mandibular premolars in a Jordanian population,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 240–248, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. B. Bolhari, H. Assadian, and T. Fattah, “Evaluation of the root canal morphology of mandibular second premolars in an Iranian population,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 516–521, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  55. B. Celikten, P. Tufenkci, U. Aksoy et al., “Cone beam CT evaluation of mandibular molar root canal morphology in a Turkish Cypriot population,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 2221–2226, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. A. E. Skidmore and A. M. Bjorndal, “Root canal morphology of the human mandibular first molar,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 778–784, 1971. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. R. Zhang, H. Wang, Y. Y. Tian, X. Yu, T. Hu, and P. M. Dummer, “Use of cone-beam computed tomography to evaluate root and canal morphology of mandibular molars in Chinese individuals,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 990–999, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. B. V. Caputo, G. A. Noro Filho, D. M. de Andrade Salgado, C. Moura-Netto, E. M. Giovani, and C. Costa, “Evaluation of the root canal morphology of molars by using cone-beam computed tomography in a Brazilian population: part I,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 1604–1607, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. C. C. Huang, Y. C. Chang, M. C. Chuang et al., “Evaluation of root and canal systems of mandibular first molars in Taiwanese individuals using cone-beam computed tomography,” Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 303–308, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. A. A. Al-Qudah and L. A. Awawdeh, “Root and canal morphology of mandibular first and second molar teeth in a Jordanian population,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 42, pp. 775–784, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. N. Pattanshetti, M. Gaidhane, and A. M. Al Kandari, “Root and canal morphology of the mesiobuccal and distal roots of permanent first molars in a Kuwait population: a clinical study,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 755–762, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. P. Neelakantan, C. Subbarao, C. V. Subbarao, and M. Ravindranath, “Root and canal morphology of mandibular second molars in an Indian population,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1319–1322, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. A. M. Pawar, M. Pawar, A. Kfir et al., “Root canal morphology and variations in mandibular second molar teeth of an Indian population: an in vivo cone-beam computed tomography analysis,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 2801–2809, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. M. Kuzekanani, J. Haghani, and H. Nosrati, “Root and canal morphology of mandibular third molars in an Iranian population,” Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 85–88, 2012. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 Svetlana Razumova et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

1006 Views | 404 Downloads | 3 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.