Evaluation of Root Canal Anatomy in Mandibular Incisors Using CBCT Imaging Technique in an Iranian Population

Mirhosseini, Farzaneh; Tabrizizadeh, Mahdi; Nateghi, Negar; Shafiei Rad, Elahe; Derafhsi, Ali; Ahmadi, Behzad; Daneshvar, Mahboube

doi:10.30476/dentjods.2019.44559

Evaluation of Root Canal Anatomy in Mandibular Incisors Using CBCT Imaging Technique in an Iranian Population

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Farzaneh Mirhosseini ¹

Mahdi Tabrizizadeh ²

Negar Nateghi ³

Elahe Shafiei Rad ¹

Ali Derafhsi ⁴

Behzad Ahmadi ⁵

Mahboube Daneshvar ¹

¹ Dept. of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Faculty, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

² Dept. of Endodontics, Dental Faculty, Yazd Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

³ Dentist. Dental Faculty, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

⁴ Dept. of Prosthodontics, Dental Faculty, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

⁵ Dept. of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Faculty, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.30476/dentjods.2019.44559

Abstract

Statement of the Problem: To perform a successful endodontic treatment, sufficient knowledge about the number of root canals and their morphology is essential. Missed normal variations may burden this treatment.Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the presence of the second canal in the roots of mandibular central and lateral incisors in an Iranian population by employing CBCT images.Materials and Method: This cross-sectional study recruited 180 CBCT image of mandible to evaluate the number of roots as well as the number and types of root canals. Data for each sample were collected in a data collection form set and analyzed by chi-square test using SPSS17 software.Results: A total of 681 permanent mandibular incisors were assessed. All samples had one root. Most of the samples (70.3%) had only one canal (type 1 Vertucci classification). The frequency of dual-canal in samples was 29.7%; the prevalence of dual-canal in mandibular lateral teeth (35%) was more than the mandibular central teeth (23.9%, p < 0.05). Following type 1 canal, type 3 (15.7%), type 5 (12.9%), type 4 (0.7%), and type 2 (0.3%) canals had the highest frequencies respectively.Conclusion: Based on this study, presence of a second canal in mandibular lateral teeth (35%) is more common than in mandibular central teeth (23.9 %). The most common canal type observed was type 1 (according to Vertucci classification) followed by type 3.

Keywords

Anatomy

Root canal

Incisors

Mandible

Cone beam computed tomography

1. Pattanshetti N, Gaidhane M, Al Kandari AM. Root and canal morphology of the mesiobuccal and distal roots of permanent first molars in a Kuwait population--a clinical study. Int Endod J. 2008; 41: 755–762. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Al-Qudah AA, Awawdeh LA. Root canal morphology of mandibular incisors in a Jordanian population. Int Endod J. 2006; 39: 873–877. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Tabrizi-Zadeh M, Farazi K. Evaluation of root canal morphology of human mandibular incisors in Yazd. J Dent Med. 2003; 16: 56–60. [Google Scholar]

4. Lin Z, Hu Q, Wang T, Ge J, Liu S, Zhu M, et al. Use of CBCT to investigate the root canal morphology of mandibular incisors. Surg Radiol Anat. 2014; 36: 877–882. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Vertucci FJ. Root canal morphology and its relationship to endodontic procedures. Endodontic Topics. 2005; 10: 3–29. [Google Scholar]

6. Kabak YS, Abbott PV. Endodontic treatment of mandibular incisors with two root canals: report of two cases. Aust Endod J. 2007; 33: 27–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Miyashita M, Kasahara E, Yasuda E, Yamamoto A, Sekizawa T. Root canal system of the mandibular incisor. J Endod. 1997; 23: 479–484. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Yu DC, Tam A, Schilder H. Root canal anatomy illustrated by microcomputed tomography and clinical cases. Gen Dent. 2006; 54: 331–335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Ingle JI, Bakland LK. Ingle’s endodontics. 6th ed. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2008. p. 603. [Google Scholar]

10. Torabinejad M, Walton RE, Fouad AF. Endodontics: Principles and practice. 5th ed. StLouis: Elsevier; 2015. p. 231. [Google Scholar]

11. Reuben J, Velmurugan N, Kandaswamy D. The evaluation of root canal morphology of the mandibular firstmolar in an Indian population using spiral computed tomography scan: an in vitro study. J Endod. 2008; 34: 212–215. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Cleghorn BM, Christie WH, Dong CC. Root and root canal morphology of the human permanentmaxillary first molar: a literature review. J Endod. 2006; 32: 813–821. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Alaçam T, Tinaz AC, Genç O, Kayaoglu G. Second mesiobuccal canal detection in maxillary first molarsusing microscopy and ultrasonics. Aust Endod J. 2008; 34: 106–109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Vizzotto MB, Silveira PF, Arús NA, Montagner F, Gomes BP, da Silveira HE. CBCT for the assessment of second mesiobuccal (MB2) canalsin maxillary molar teeth: effect of voxel size and presence of root filling. Int Endod J. 2013; 46: 870–876. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Zheng QH, Wang Y, Zhou XD, Wang Q, Zheng GN, Huang DM. A cone-beam computed tomography study of maxillary first permanent molar root and canal morphology in a Chinese population. J Endod. 2010; 36: 1480–1484. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, Schwartz SA, Schindler WG. Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod. 2007; 33: 1121–1132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Scarfe W, Farman A. Oral Radiology—principles and interpretation. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier: 2014. pp. 199–213. [Google Scholar]

18. Ezoddini F, Mohammadi Z, Tabrizizadeh M. Root canal morphology of human mandibular incisors in Yazd province. Dent Res J. 2006;1: 37–39. [Google Scholar]

19. Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, Whaites E. The potential applications of cone beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems. Int Endod J. 2007; 40: 818–830. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. 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: 391–398. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Scarlatescu S, Didilescu AC, Stratul SI, Rusu D, Grigore M, Greabu M, et al. Root Canal Morphology ofMandibular Central Incisors in a South-Eastern Romanian Population: Endodontic and Periodontal Implications. Timisoara Medical Journal. 2010; 60: 280–283. [Google Scholar]

22. Aminsobhani M, Sadegh M, Meraji N, Razmi H, Kharazifard MJ. Evaluation of the root and canal morphology of mandibularpermanent anterior teeth in an Iranian population by cone-beam computed tomography. J Dent (Tehran) 2013; 10: 358–366. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Kayaoglu G, Peker I, Gumusok M, Sarikir C, Kayadugun A, Ucok O. Root and canal symmetry in the mandibular anterior teeth of patients attending a dental clinic: CBCT study. Braz Oral Res. 2015; 29: 1–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Altunsoy M, Ok E, Nur BG, Aglarci OS, Gungor E, Colak M. A cone-beam computed tomography study of the root canal morphology of anterior teeth in a Turkish population. Eur J Dent. 2014; 8: 302–306. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Geduk G, Deniz Y, Zengin AZ, Eroglu E. Cone-beam computed tomography study of root canal morphology of permanent mandibular incisors in a Turkish sub-population. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. 2015; 3: 7–10. [Google Scholar]

26. Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. Quality of life and its importance in orthodontics. J Orthod. 2001; 28: 152–158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]