| Literature DB >> 26015823 |
Seda Aydemir1, Dilek Helvacioglu-Yigit1, Alper Sinanoglu2, Emre Ozel3.
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to present a rare case of a maxillary lateral incisor exhibiting two separate root canals confirmed by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). A 65-year-old female patient with an esthetic complaint regarding her maxillary left lateral incisor was referred to our clinic. During a radiographical examination, an endodontically treated root canal and an extra root canal with an apical lesion were observed. The retreatment was performed. CBCT findings confirmed the root canal mophology of the maxillary left lateral with two distinct canals. We conclude that the CBCT imaging is an adjunctive tool for better assessment of complex root canal systems.Entities:
Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography; Endodontic retreatment; Extra root canal; Maxillary lateral incisor
Year: 2015 PMID: 26015823 PMCID: PMC4432900 DOI: 10.14740/jocmr2154w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med Res ISSN: 1918-3003
Figure 1Preoperative periapical radiography.
Figure 2Working length determination.
Figure 3Postoperative periapical radiography.
Figure 4Periapical radiography after 18 months follow-up.
United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Criteria
| Category | Scores | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Retention | Alfa | No loss of restorative material |
| Charlie | Any loss of restorative material | |
| Color match | Alfa | Matches tooth |
| Bravo | Acceptable mismatch | |
| Charlie | Unacceptable mismatch | |
| Secondary caries | Alfa | No caries present |
| Charlie | Caries present | |
| Anatomic form | Alfa | Continuous |
| Bravo | Slight discontinuity, clinically acceptable | |
| Charlie | Discontinuous, failure | |
| Marginal adaptation | Alfa | Closely adapted, no detectable margin |
| Bravo | Detectable margin, clinically acceptable | |
| Charlie | Marginal crevice, clinical failure | |
| Surface texture | Alfa | Enamel-like surface |
| Bravo | Surface rougher than enamel, clinically acceptable | |
| Charlie | Surface unacceptable rough |
Figure 5Clinical view after 18 months follow-up.
Figure 6Axial, panoramic and cross-sectional reconstruction with a slice thickness at 1 mm.