Cone-beam Computed Tomography Analysis of the Root Canal Morphology of Mandibular Incisors Using Two Classification Systems in a Spanish Subpopulation: A Cross-Sectional Study
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Herrero Hernández, Silvia; Valencia De Pablo, Óliver; Bravo Pérez, Manuel; Conde, Antonio; Estevez, Roberto; Haddad, Yoseif; López Valverde, Nansi; Rossi Fedele, GiampieroEditorial
KARE Publishing
Materia
Ahmed Anatomy Cone-beam computed tomography
Fecha
2024-02-21Referencia bibliográfica
Herrero-hernández S, Pablo ÓV, Bravo M, Conde A, Estevez R, Haddad Y, López-Valverde N, Rossi-Fedele G. Cone-beam Computed Tomography Analysis of the Root Canal Morphology of Mandibular Incisors Using Two Classification Systems in a Spanish Subpopulation: A Cross-Sectional Study. Eur Endod J 2024; 9: 106-13 [10.14744/eej.2023.10327]
Resumen
Objective: This study evaluated the root and canal morphology in permanent mandibular incisors teeth
using cone-beam computer tomography imaging in a Spanish subpopulation, and compared these findings
with ipsilateral (similarity) and contralateral (symmetry) incisors. In addition, the position of canal
splitting was measured.
Methods: A total of 229 datasets comprising four mandibular teeth each (n=916 incisors) were analysed
using Vertucci and Ahmed et al. classifications, and, the similarity and symmetry were calculated.
The distance from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), and the most coronal canal divergence was
measured (if present). The role of sex was also assessed. The Cochran Q Test, LOGIS PROC in SUDAAN,
Chi-square, and Kappa were used for the different comparisons. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered
significant.
Results: All incisors were single-rooted and no significant differences regarding root canal morphology
were found according to the sex of the subjects included in the database. The most common morphology
was Vertucci type I/Ahmed et al. 1MI1(65.3% for central and 66.8% for lateral incisors respectively), followed
by type III/1MI1–2–1 (31% for central and 30.6% for lateral incisors). 1.8% of the samples were considered
as non-classifiable with Vertucci but were classified with codes using the Ahmed et al. system. Similarity
values were 74.7% for the left side, and 74.2% for the right side, whereas symmetry values were 90% for
central and 84.3% for lateral incisors. In the presence of divergences, the main (SD) distances from the CEJ
were for type II/1MI1–2–1 3.8±0.8 (centrals) 4.0±0.7 mm (laterals); for type V/1MI1–2 this value ranged between
6.0±1.8 and 5.5±1.5 mm, whereas values for 1MI1–2–3–2–1 were 1.8 and 2.1 mm. No significant differences
were found when the position of the most coronal divergence was compared between lateral and central
incisors for the different morphologies.
Conclusion: A high prevalence of Vertucci I/Ahmed et al. 1MI1 configuration was present in mandibular incisors
from Spanish individuals. Similarity and symmetry were common, particularly for central incisors. The
position of the coronal splitting of the canals varied according to the root canal morphology.