medigraphic.com
ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

2017, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2017; 74 (1)

Root canal morphology of third molars

Olguín MTG, Amarillas EED

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 17-24
PDF size: 342.74 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The root morphology of third molars is something that can make extraction more difficult, which is why research is needed into the most common anatomical aspects of this characteristic. Objective: To understand the root morphology of the third molar. Material and method: 155 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of patients aged ≥ 16 years of both sexes with at least one retained or erupted third molar with complete root development were examined. The features assessed were: number, length, diameter, and shape of the roots. Results: The upper third molar was found to have a greater frequency of fused (57.9%) and cone-shaped roots (27.2%). Cases of separate roots most commonly displayed distal curvature towards the middle third of the mesiobuccal root (35%), while the distobuccal root was more typically straight along its longitudinal axis (28.8%). The palatal root was most commonly either straight along its longitudinal axis or its palatal side (18.7% in both cases), the latter being longer (11.7 ± 1.7 mm) and having a greater diameter in each of its three sections (cervical 4.8 ± 0.9 mm, middle 4 ± 1.1 mm, and apical 2.8 ± 0.9 mm). The presence of two converging roots (75.9%) and two roots separated by an interdental septum (38.1%) was more common in lower third molars, with the distobuccal root having the greatest diameter in each of its three sections (cervical, 4.1 ± 1 mm, middle, 3.4 ± 0.7 mm, and apical 2.3 ± 0.6 mm). Fused roots were longer (11.6 ± 1.8 mm) and most commonly cone-shaped with distal tapering (27.7%). Conclusions: The characteristics observed in the CBCT images of the roots of the third molars were similar to those described in anatomical literature. Furthermore, multiple variations were found in their shape, in both the fused and the separate root canals. This morphological aspect should be taken into consideration in order to determine the degree of difficulty of a third molar extraction.


REFERENCES

  1. Archer WH. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Vol. 1. 5ª ed. Philadelphia WB Saunders 1975.

  2. Kelly JF. Report of a workshop on the management of patients with third molar teeth. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994; 52: 1101-1112.

  3. Worrall SF. An audit of general dental practitioners’ referral practice following distribution of third molar guidelines. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001; 83 (1): 61-64.

  4. Juodzvalyz G, Daugela P. Mandibular third molar impaction: review of literature and a proposal of a classification. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2013; 4 (2): e1.

  5. Hupp J, Ellis III E, Tucker M. Cirugía oral y maxilofacial contemporánea. 5ª ed. Barcelona. Elsevier 2010.

  6. Yuasa H, Kawai T, Sugiura M. Classification of surgical difficulty in extracting impacted third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 40 (1): 26-31.

  7. Soto GS, D. Olarte VE. Odontectomía por disección de un órgano dentario. La importancia del tercer molar en el tratamiento. Visión Dental. 2005; 1: 21-29.

  8. Velayos JL, Santana H. Anatomía de la cabeza con enfoque odontoestomatológico. 3ª ed. Madrid. Editorial Médica Panamericana 2001.

  9. Ries Centeno. Cirugía bucal. Patología clínica y terapéutica. 9ª ed. Buenos Aires Médica Panamericana 1991.

  10. Sánchez TJ. Clasificación de terceros molares inferiores retenidos. Valoración radiográfica. Rev Estomatol. 1969; 7 (1): 63-70.

  11. Neves FS, Souza TC, Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F, Freitas DQ, Bóscolo FN. Correlation of panoramic radiography and cone-beam CT findings in the assessment of the relationship between impacted mandibular third molars and the mandibular canal. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41 (7): 553-557.

  12. Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imagin Sci Dent. 2015; 45 (4): 263-265.

  13. Scheid RC, Weiss G. Anatomía dental de Woelfel. 8ª ed. Barcelona. Wolters Klumer y Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2012.

  14. Vázquez D, Hetch P, Martínez ME. Radicular synostosis: frequency study using panoramic x-rays as a diagnostic method. Rev Odont Mex. 2012; 16 (2): 98-101.

  15. de Carvalho RW, de Araújo Filho RC, do Egito Vasconcelos BC. Assessment of factors associated with surgical difficulty during removal of impacted maxillary third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 71 (5): 839-845.

  16. Fuentes R, Borie E, Bustos L, Thomas D. Morfometría de terceros molares: un estudio de 55 casos. Int J Morphol. 2009; 27 (4): 1285-1289.

  17. Lübbers HT, Matthews F, Damerau G, Kruse AL, Obwegeser JA, Grätz KW, Eyrich GK. Anatomy of impacted lower third molars evaluated by computerized tomography: is there an indication for 3-dimesional imaging? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 111 (5): 547-550.

  18. Esponda VR. Anatomía dental. 6ª ed. México DF. UNAM 1981.

  19. DuBrul EL. Anatomía oral de Sicher/DuBrul. Barcelona. Ediciones Doyma 1988.

  20. Stanley JN, Major MA. Anatomía, fisiología y oclusión dental de Wheeler. 9ª ed. Barcelona. Elsevier 2010.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com