Journal of endodontics · 2024
Micro-Computed Tomographic Analysis of Radicular Dentin Thickness in Mandibular Second Molars Across Diverse Anatomic Root Variations: Identifying Potential Danger Zones.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Chen Min, Tsauo Chialing, Qiu Shenghao, Wu Weiwei, Ma Jingzhi, Peters Ove A, Gao Yuan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate radicular dentin thicknesses in mandibular second molars (MSMs), considering variations in root configuration and the morphology of the pulp chamber floor (PCF). The types of radicular grooves and potential danger zones were also identified.
METHODS: A total of 149 MSMs were scanned with micro-computed tomographic imaging and classified into 4 groups according to root fusion and PCF morphology as follows: (1) 45 with fused roots and C-shaped PCFs, (2) 45 with fused roots and non-C-shaped PCFs, (3) 14 with a single canal, and (4) 45 with separated roots. The first 2 groups were subdivided into Ω-shaped, U-shaped, and V-shaped radicular groove subgroups. Measurements included minimum and mean dentin thickness from the start of the radicular groove or root bifurcation extending 5 mm apically, the ratio of outer to inner dentin thickness, and the distribution of dentin thickness.
RESULTS: Ω-shaped and U-shaped subgroups showed significant thinner minimum inner wall thickness than V-shaped subgroups at 2-5 mm from the starting point of the radicular groove in both C-shaped and non-C-shaped pulp floor categories (P < .05). The mesial roots of separated rooted MSMs showed significant thinner dentin than a non-C-shaped floor regarding minimum and mean inner thickness and mean outer thickness (P < .05). Teeth with a single canal had significantly thicker walls compared with the other 3 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In MSMs, caution must be exercised, especially in the presence of Ω-shaped and U-shaped grooves in C-shaped roots and around the root furcation of separated roots.
METHODS: A total of 149 MSMs were scanned with micro-computed tomographic imaging and classified into 4 groups according to root fusion and PCF morphology as follows: (1) 45 with fused roots and C-shaped PCFs, (2) 45 with fused roots and non-C-shaped PCFs, (3) 14 with a single canal, and (4) 45 with separated roots. The first 2 groups were subdivided into Ω-shaped, U-shaped, and V-shaped radicular groove subgroups. Measurements included minimum and mean dentin thickness from the start of the radicular groove or root bifurcation extending 5 mm apically, the ratio of outer to inner dentin thickness, and the distribution of dentin thickness.
RESULTS: Ω-shaped and U-shaped subgroups showed significant thinner minimum inner wall thickness than V-shaped subgroups at 2-5 mm from the starting point of the radicular groove in both C-shaped and non-C-shaped pulp floor categories (P < .05). The mesial roots of separated rooted MSMs showed significant thinner dentin than a non-C-shaped floor regarding minimum and mean inner thickness and mean outer thickness (P < .05). Teeth with a single canal had significantly thicker walls compared with the other 3 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In MSMs, caution must be exercised, especially in the presence of Ω-shaped and U-shaped grooves in C-shaped roots and around the root furcation of separated roots.