Incidence of Middle Mesial Canals Based on Distance between Mesial Canal Orifices in Mandibular Molars: A Clinical and Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Analysis |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Endodontics, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, New Jersey;2. Department of Oral Diagnostics, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, New Jersey;1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China;2. Department of Epidemiology, Capital Institute of Pediatrics, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China;1. Posgraduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Nova Friburgo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;2. Posgraduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;3. School of Dentistry, Positivo University, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil;1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Gangnam Severance Dental Hospital, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea;2. Microscope Center, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Science Research Center, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea;3. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Yonsei University College of Engineering, Seoul, Korea;1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran;2. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;3. Stem Cell Research Center, Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Institute, Tehran Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran;4. Student Research Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran;5. Burn Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran;7. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany;11. Department of Dentistry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;12. Clinical Epidemiology and Health Care Research, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;1. Center for Craniofacial Regeneration, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;2. Department of Oral Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;6. Department of Endodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;5. Department of Periodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;4. McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania |
| |
| Abstract: | IntroductionThis study evaluated the presence of midmesial canals (MMCs) in a random sample of mandibular molars and the relationship of the intracanal distance between mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual (ML) canal orifices.MethodsFifty-one extracted mandibular molars were divided into samples of 3 to 4 teeth, mounted in plaster and boxing wax, and immersed in water before cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging. Two endodontic residents completed the access openings. The teeth and the CBCT images were interpreted for the presence of MMCs and the mesial intracanal distance. CBCT software measured the distance between the buccal of the MB canal to the lingual of the ML canal at the pulpal floor to determine the average length between the canals.ResultsSeven distinct MMCs were seen both clinically (incidence of 13.725%) and on the CBCT images. Twenty-seven teeth (52.94%) had ambiguous broad isthmi between the MB and the ML orifices. MMCs were present at the furcation level but merged with the MB or ML canal toward the apex in 6 of 7 teeth (85.71%). The mean distance between the mesial canals in teeth with MMCs was 3.643 mm, and it was 3.818 mm for teeth without MMCs. According to independent sample t testing, the P value was >.05.ConclusionsThe incidence of MMCs in mandibular molars appears consistent with the literature. However, there does not appear to be a statistically significant difference in the mesial intracanal distance in teeth with and without MMCs. Visualization of MMCs on CBCTs may be subjective. There does not appear to be a correlation between the presence of MMCs and an increased or decreased mesial intracanal distance. |
| |
| Keywords: | Cone-beam computed tomography mandibular molars midmesial canal |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
