Journal of endodontics · 2016
Prevalence and Characteristics of the Maxillary C-shaped Molar.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Martins Jorge N R, Mata António, Marques Duarte, Anderson Craig, Caramês João
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The anatomy of the maxillary C-shaped molar has been the subject of several case reports although no true prevalence research has ever been conducted. The aim of this observational study was to evaluate and characterize the incidence of these morphologies using cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) technology.
METHODS: Patients having presurgical CBCT examination were selected. CBCT analysis was performed at 5 different axial levels, and the teeth were classified as maxillary molar C shapes according to the inclusion criteria for the present investigation. The prevalence of C-shaped anatomy was calculated. The z test for proportions in independent groups was used to analyze the differences between proportions. Intrarater reliability was also tested.
RESULTS: A total of 2227 teeth (928 upper first molars and 1299 upper second molars) from 895 patients were included in this research. Five different types of C-shaped molars were found, which included fusion between mesiobuccal and palatal roots (type A), mesiobuccal and distobuccal roots (type B), distobuccal and palatal roots (type C), 2 possible palatal roots (type D), and mesiobuccal and palatal roots connecting with an independent distobuccal root canal at apical or between distobuccal and palatal roots connecting with an independent mesiobuccal root canal at apical (type E). The global prevalence was 1.1% for first molars and 3.8% for second molars. Differences were observed between sex, teeth, and some types of C shapes at P < .05.
CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary C-shaped molars have low prevalence but high anatomic complexity. An understanding of their anatomic configuration and variations is important in ensuring that they are treated properly. Distinct differences exist between C-shaped configurations of upper and lower molars.
METHODS: Patients having presurgical CBCT examination were selected. CBCT analysis was performed at 5 different axial levels, and the teeth were classified as maxillary molar C shapes according to the inclusion criteria for the present investigation. The prevalence of C-shaped anatomy was calculated. The z test for proportions in independent groups was used to analyze the differences between proportions. Intrarater reliability was also tested.
RESULTS: A total of 2227 teeth (928 upper first molars and 1299 upper second molars) from 895 patients were included in this research. Five different types of C-shaped molars were found, which included fusion between mesiobuccal and palatal roots (type A), mesiobuccal and distobuccal roots (type B), distobuccal and palatal roots (type C), 2 possible palatal roots (type D), and mesiobuccal and palatal roots connecting with an independent distobuccal root canal at apical or between distobuccal and palatal roots connecting with an independent mesiobuccal root canal at apical (type E). The global prevalence was 1.1% for first molars and 3.8% for second molars. Differences were observed between sex, teeth, and some types of C shapes at P < .05.
CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary C-shaped molars have low prevalence but high anatomic complexity. An understanding of their anatomic configuration and variations is important in ensuring that they are treated properly. Distinct differences exist between C-shaped configurations of upper and lower molars.