G De-Deus1, E A Rodrigues1, F G Belladonna1, M Simões-Carvalho1, D M Cavalcante1, D S Oliveira1, E M Souza2, K A Giorgi1, M A Versiani1, R T Lopes3, E J N L Silva1,4, S Paciornik5. 1. Department of Endodontics, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 2. Department of Dentistry II, Federal University of Maranhão, São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil. 3. Nuclear Engineering Program, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 4. Department of Endodontics, Grande Rio University, Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 5. Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the smallest dentine thickness in mesial canals of mandibular molars along the cervical and middle thirds of the root by means of a micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) technology and digital image analysis. METHODOLOGY: Fifty mesial roots of mandibular molars having two independent canals (mesiobuccal and mesiolingual), in the coronal and middle levels, were selected and scanned in a micro-CT device. After reconstruction procedures, approximately 468 slices per root covering the 7 mm below the furcation area of the mesial root were analysed to measure the smallest dentine thickness (danger zone [DZ]) in each slice from both distal and mesial regions of the mesial canals by an automatic segmentation process. RESULTS: The DZ values in the mesiobuccal canals varied from 0.67 to 1.93 mm, with an average of 1.13 ± 0.21 mm. For the mesiolingual canals, the DZ varied from 0.77 to 1.89 mm with an average of 1.10 ± 0.21 mm. There was no correspondence in the DZ between the mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals at the same cross-sectional level in 71% of the specimens. Moreover, the smallest dentine thickness was towards the mesial region of the roots in 22% and 18% of the mesiolingual and mesiobuccal canals, respectively. (Figs 1 and 2 CONCLUSIONS: The smallest dentine thickness was on the mesial plane of the roots in about 40% of the canals. The vertical location of the DZ in relation to the furcation area was in the middle third of the root.
AIM: To investigate the smallest dentine thickness in mesial canals of mandibular molars along the cervical and middle thirds of the root by means of a micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) technology and digital image analysis. METHODOLOGY: Fifty mesial roots of mandibular molars having two independent canals (mesiobuccal and mesiolingual), in the coronal and middle levels, were selected and scanned in a micro-CT device. After reconstruction procedures, approximately 468 slices per root covering the 7 mm below the furcation area of the mesial root were analysed to measure the smallest dentine thickness (danger zone [DZ]) in each slice from both distal and mesial regions of the mesial canals by an automatic segmentation process. RESULTS: The DZ values in the mesiobuccal canals varied from 0.67 to 1.93 mm, with an average of 1.13 ± 0.21 mm. For the mesiolingual canals, the DZ varied from 0.77 to 1.89 mm with an average of 1.10 ± 0.21 mm. There was no correspondence in the DZ between the mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals at the same cross-sectional level in 71% of the specimens. Moreover, the smallest dentine thickness was towards the mesial region of the roots in 22% and 18% of the mesiolingual and mesiobuccal canals, respectively. (Figs 1 and 2 CONCLUSIONS: The smallest dentine thickness was on the mesial plane of the roots in about 40% of the canals. The vertical location of the DZ in relation to the furcation area was in the middle third of the root.