Microcomputed tomographic analysis of the furcation grooves of maxillary first premolars

Evaluation of Palatal Furcation Groove and Root Canal Anatomy of Maxillary First Premolar: A CBCT and Micro-CT Study

Objectives

This study is aimed at investigating the root and root canal morphology by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and palatal furcation groove of the buccal root by microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) of maxillary first premolars in a Chinese subpopulation.

Methods

This study assessed CBCT images of 440 patients aged 14-80 years. Based on Vertucci's classification, the number of roots and the canal configuration were determined. Forty-eight maxillary first premolars with furcation grooves were analyzed by micro-CT in patients aged 18-25 years.

Results

Based on the CBCT assay, 70.22% and 29.32% of maxillary first premolars were 1 root and 2 roots, respectively. The configuration indicated statistical difference (P < 0.05) between male and female patients. The most common canal type was type IV and was found in 44.32% of cases, followed by type I in 27.84%, and then type II in 20.57%. Root bifurcations had 40.13% prevalence which was distributed more in the middle third than in the cervical and the apical third. For the micro-CT study, 95.83% of the furcation groove configuration was found in the bifurcated maxillary first premolars. The length varied from 1.02 to 7.63 mm. The mean depth of this groove was 0.57 mm in the root coronal, 0.47 mm in the root middle, and 0.22 mm in the root apical level. Palatal dentin width was smaller than 1 mm.

Conclusion

The anatomy of the root and root canal system and the irregular wall width of maxillary first premolars with furcation grooves may help dentists to understand the anatomical morphology and improve the outcomes of endodontic treatment.

Root Canal Anatomy of Maxillary First Premolar by Microscopic Computed Tomography in a Chinese Adolescent Subpopulation

Objectives

To investigate the root morphology and root canal anatomy of maxillary first premolar using microscopic computed tomography (micro-CT).

Methods

324 maxillary first premolars were collected and scanned. The root and canal diameter, canal wall thickness, root taper, and cross-sectional shapes were determined in the single root with 1 canal (SR1C), single root with 2 canals (SR2C), and 2 roots with 2 canals (2R2C) by micro-CT.

Results

The results showed that single-rooted maxillary premolars were more common than other types. The incidence of SR1C, SR2C, and 2R2C reached 25%, 26.39%, and 26.39%, respectively. Root and canal diameters and canal wall thickness were decreased from coronal third to apical foramen. The three parameters and canal taper showed increases from buccal and palatal (BP) to mesiodistal (MD) aspects. The root canal tapers were smallest of the middle third level. The findings showed the different variations in 2R2C teeth. The root canal cross-sectional morphology in maxillary first premolars is complicated, including round, oval, long oval, flat canal, and irregular canal shapes. The distribution varied in different aspects.

Conclusion

Root canal morphology showed a wide variation and complicated structure. The single-rooted teeth were more common in the Chinese adolescent population, and the majority of maxillary first premolars have two canals.

CBCT Assessment of Root Dentine Removal by Gates-Glidden Drills and Two Engine-Driven Root Preparation Systems

Introduction:

The aim of this study was to compare the dentine removing efficacy of Gates-Glidden drills with hand files, ProTaper and OneShape single-instrument system using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods and Materials:

A total of 39 extracted bifurcated maxillary first premolars were divided into 3 groups (n=13) and were prepared using either Gates-Glidden drills and hand instruments, ProTaper and OneShape systems. Pre- and post-instrumentation CBCT images were obtained. The dentin thickness of canals was measured at furcation, and 1 and 2 mm from the furcation area in buccal, palatal, mesial and distal walls. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA test. Tukey’s post hoc tests were used for two-by-two comparisons.

Results:

Gates-Glidden drills with hand files removed significantly more (P<0.001) dentine than the engine-driven systems in all canal walls (buccal, palatal, mesial and distal). There were no significant differences between OneShape and ProTaper rotary systems (P>0.05).

Conclusion:

The total cervical dentine removal during canal instrumentation was significantly less with engine-driven file systems compared to Gates-Glidden drills. There were no significant differences between residual dentine thicknesses left between the various canal walls.