Seybold Report ISSN: 1533-9211
S B Divya
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai- 600077
Email Id- divyasena03@gmail.com
Dr. S.Delphine Priscilla Antony
Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College,
Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University
Chennai- 600077, Email id- delphine.sdc@saveetha.com
Dr. B Arthi
Senior Lecturer, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College,
Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University
Chennai- 600077, Email id: arthi.bds@gmail.com
Vol 17, No 09 ( 2022 ) | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7095110 | Licensing: CC 4.0 | Pg no:1210-1223 | Published on: 20-09-2022
Abstract
Title of the article: Morphological analysis of Maxillary First Premolar using CBCT in Chennai population.
Context: All root canal procedures whether surgical or non-surgical require a thorough knowledge of tooth morphology, adequate access to and exploration of pulpal space, careful interpretations of radiographs are prerequisites. CBCT serves as an important diagnostic tool for complex root anatomies.
Aim: The aim of this study was to analyze by CBCT the radicular and canalicular morphology of Maxillary First Premolar in a Chennai population.
Settings and Design: The study was conducted in the University setting.
Methods and Material: An observational in vivo study was carried out with CBCT examinations of 80 maxillary first premolar, both left and right.
Features evaluated:
● Number of roots
● Number of canals
● The thickness of cemento dentinal wall around the root canal at the level of 2mm, 4mm and 6mm from the apex.
Statistical analysis used:
Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS Software version 23.0. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics (mean (M), standard deviation (SD), 95 % confidence interval).Sub-group analysis was done for specific analysis pertaining to gender, sex, and specific tooth.
Results: At all the levels 2mm,4mm, and 6mm from the apex, in a buccal canal, buccal cemento dentinal wall was found to be the thickest, and mesial wall was the thinnest. In the palatal canal, the buccal wall was thickest and the thinnest was the distal wall.It was statistically significant that in 14 teeth, at 2mm in the buccal canal, the mesial wall was the thinnest in all the samples.
Conclusions: The majority of Maxillary first premolar in Chennai population presented two roots with two root canals, followed by one root with two root canals. The least common was a single-rooted tooth with a single canal..At the level 2mm from the apex, in 14, the mesial wall was thinnest, and in 24 distal walls was thinnest. Care must be taken not to over-instrument the proximal walls to avoid perforations or fractures.
Keywords:
Maxillary first premolar, root canal morphology, CBCT