Emrah KARATAŞLIOĞLU, Fahrettin KALABALIK

Morphological evaluation of maxillary and mandibular canines using cone-beam computed tomography in Turkish population

Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the root canal morphology of the maxillary and mandibular canines using conebeam computed tomography (CBCT) in a Turkish population.Material and Methods: CBCT images of 377 maxillary and 419 mandibular canines were examined. The number of roots and theirmorphology, number of canals per root and canal configurations according to the Vertucci’s classification were recorded. Canalconfigurations and presence or absence of lateral canals were examined regarding gender, age groups, and tooth side. Anatomicsymmetry in canal morphology of bilateral canines was also recorded. The data were evaluated by Pearson Chi-square test (p < .05).Results:The prevalence of type I canal configuration in maxillary and mandibular canines was 96.3% and 87.8%, respectively. Twentyone percent of the maxillary canines and 14.8% of the mandibular canines had accessory canals. In maxillary canines, no significantdifference was observed in the prevalence of accessory canals between males and females and between age groups. In mandibularcanines, lateral canals and complex canal morphology were detected significantly more often in females. Prevalence of complex rootcanal increased with age in both maxillary and mandibular canines and great anatomic symmetry was observed in canal morphologyof bilaterally present teeth in the same patient.Conclusion: CBCT is a useful tool for evaluation of root and canal morphology. Our results can provide valuable aids for cliniciansduring root canal treatment of canines.

PDF

___

1. Krasner P, Rankow HJ. Anatomy of the pulp-chamber floor. J Endod 2004;30:5-16.
2. Cantatore G, Berutti E, Castellucci A. Missed anatomy: frequency and clinical impact. Endod Topics 2006;15:3-31.
3. De Deus Q, Horizonte B. Frequency, location, and direction of the lateral, secondary, and accessory canals. J Endod 1975;1:361-6.
4. Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1984;58:589-99.
5. Çalişkan MK, Pehlivan Y, Sepetçioğlu F, et al. Root canal morphology of human permanent teeth in a Turkish population. J Endod 1995;21:200-4.
6. Sert S, Bayirli GS. Evaluation of the root canal configurations of the mandibular and maxillary permanent teeth by gender in the Turkish population. J Endod 2004;30:391-8.
7. Mauger MJ, Schindler WG, Walker III WA. An evaluation of canal morphology at different levels of root resection in mandibular incisors. J Endod 1998;24:607-9.
8. Pineda F, Kuttler Y. Mesiodistal and buccolingual roentgenographic investigation of 7,275 root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972;33:101-10.
9. Hession RW. Endodontic morphology: II. A radiographic analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 1977;44:610-20.
10. Gilles J, Reader A. An SEM investigation of the mesiolingual canal in human maxillary first and second molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70:638-43.
11. Alaçam T, Tinaz AC, Genç Ö, et al. Second mesiobuccal canal detection in maxillary first molars using microscopy and ultrasonics. Austr Endod J 2008;34:106-9.
12. Versiani M, Pécora J, Sousausayaogl The anatomy of tworooted mandibular canines determined using microcomputed tomography. Int Endod J 2011;44:682-7.
13. Versiani M, Pécora J, Sousausayaogl The anatomy of tworooted mandibular canines determined using microcomputed tomography. Int Endes. Int Endod J 2013;46:800-7.
14. Neelakantan P, Subbarao C, Ahuja R, et al. Conebeam computed tomography study of root and canal morphology of maxillary first and second molars in an Indian population. J Endod 2010;36(10):1622-7.
15. Plotino G, Tocci L, Grande NM, et al. Symmetry of root and root canal morphology of maxillary and mandibular molars in a white population: a conebeam computed tomography study in vivo. J Endod 2013;39:1545-8.
16. Somalinga Amardeep N, Raghu S, Natanasabapathy V. Root canal morphology of permanent maxillary and mandibular canines in Indian population using cone beam computed tomography. Anat Res Int 2014;2014:1-7.
17. Kayaoglu G, Peker I, Gumusok M, et al. Root and canal symmetry in the mandibular anterior teeth of patients attending a dental clinic: CBCT study. Braz Oral Res 2015;29:1-7.
18. Zhengyan Y, Keke L, Fei W, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography study of the root and canal morphology of mandibular permanent anterior teeth in a Chongqing population. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2016;12:19-25.
19. Soleymani A, Namaryan N, Moudi E, et al. Root canal morphology of mandibular canine in an Iranian population: A CBCT assessment. Iran Endod J 2017;12:78-82.
20. Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, et al. The potential applications of cone beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems. Int Endod J 2007;40:818-30.
21. Martins J, Ordinola‐Zapata R, Marques D, et al. Differences in root canal system configuration in human permanent teeth within different age groups. Int Endod J 2018;51:931-41.
22. Ng YL, Aung T, Alavi A, et al. Root and canal morphology of Burmese maxillary molars. Int Endod J 2001;34:620-30.
23. Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, et al. Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod 2007;33:1121-32.
24. Peikoff M, Trott J. An endodontic failure caused by an unusual anatomical anomaly. J Endod 1977;3:356-9.
25. Altunsoy M, Ok E, Nur BG, et al. A cone-beam computed tomography study of the root canal morphology of anterior teeth in a Turkish population. Eur J Dent 2014;8:302.
26. Pécora JD, Sousa Neto M, Saquy PC. Internal anatomy, direction and number of roots and size of human mandibular canines. Braz dent J 1993;4:53-7.
27. Ouellet R. Mandibular permanent cuspids with two roots. J Can Dent Assoc 1995;61:159-61.
28. Lin Z, Hu Q, Wang T, et al. Use of CBCT to investigate the root canal morphology of mandibular incisors. Surg Radiol Anat 2014;36:877-82.