ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate root canal morphology of maxillary first and second molars and also to assess the prevalence and morphology of the second mesiobuccal canal (MB2) in these teeth, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this cross-sectional study, the total of 470 CBCT images from the archive of Radiology Department of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Iran, was evaluated and 295 images were selected. The number of roots, and canal configuration were determined based on Vertucci's classification system. The data was analyzed using SPSS 20, and P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 295 images from 295 patients (165 females and 130 males), including 389 maxillary first (197 right and 192 left) and 460 maxillary second (235 right and 225 left) molars were evaluated. The prevalence of MB2 canals were 70.2% and 43.4% in the maxillary first and second molars, respectively. The most common type of Vertucci's classification was type II (53.1%), followed by type I. CONCLUSION: The second mesiobuccal canal was present in almost two thirds of first and less than half of second molars. The morphology and canal configuration of a maxillary molar can almost predict the morphology of contralateral molar. However, it does not relate to the ipsilateral molar.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Providing a cross-sectional image is essential for preimplant assessments. Computed tomography (CT) and cone beam CT (CBCT) images are very expensive and provide high radiation dose. Tangential projection is a very simple, available, and low-dose technique that can be used in the anterior portion of mandible. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of tangential projection in preimplant measurements in comparison to CBCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three dry edentulous human mandibles were examined in five points at intercanine region using tangential projection and CBCT. The height and width of the ridge were measured twice by two observers. The mandibles were then cut, and real measurements were obtained. The agreement between real measures and measurements obtained by either technique, and inter- and intra-observer reliability were tested. RESULTS: The measurement error was less than 0.12 for tangential technique and 0.06 for CBCT. The agreement between the real measures and measurements from radiographs were higher than 0.87. Tangential projection slightly overestimated the distances, while there was a slight underestimation in CBCT results. CONCLUSION: Considering the low cost, low radiation dose, simplicity and availability, tangenital projection would be adequate for preimplant assessment in edentulous patients when limited numbers of implants are required in the anterior mandible.
