| Literature DB >> 34131465 |
Sung Eun Yang1, Tae Yeon Lee2, Kyung Jae Kim3.
Abstract
This retrospective study of roots with C-shaped canals investigated their prevalence, configuration type, and lingual wall thickness, as well as the panoramic radiographic features of roots in permanent mandibular second molars confirmed to have C-shaped canals on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in a Korean population. In total, 1884 CBCT images of mandibular second molars were examined by two endodontists to analyze the presence of C-shaped canals according to age and sex. The bilateral occurrence of C-shaped roots and their morphology on panoramic radiography were assessed and statistically analyzed using the chi-square test. The classification of Fan et al. was applied to categorize the configurations of C-shaped canals. The lingual wall thickness was calculated in the mesial, middle, and distal areas at the orifice and at 5 mm from the apex. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the mean difference of lingual wall thickness between the apex and orifice level. A P value of 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance in the statistical analyses. Of 2508 mandibular second molars, 924 (36.8%) had C-shaped root canals. The prevalence was significantly lower in the over 61 age group (24.08%) than in the 21-30-year age group (40.02%) and was higher in women (42.32%). Most cases were bilateral (85.9%). The C1 type was the most common (35.3%). The prevalence of C1 type canals decreased, while that of C3b type canals increased with age. In 75.2% of teeth having C-shaped root canals on CBCT, fused roots were observed on panoramic views. The difference in the lingual wall thickness at the orifice and 5 mm from the apex was significant in the middle area in all configurations of C-shaped root canals. When performing nonsurgical or surgical endodontic procedures of the mandibular second molars, clinicians should consider age, sex, ethnicity, and anatomical variations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34131465 PMCID: PMC8181116 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9152004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scanning ISSN: 0161-0457 Impact factor: 1.932
Figure 1Classification of C-shaped canal configurations by Fan B.
Figure 2Measurement locations of the C1, C2, and C3a types.
Number and frequency of C-shaped root canals in mandibular molars by gender, age, and tooth position (n = 924).
| Gender | Tooth position | Age (years) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female |
| Left | Right |
| 18–20 | 21–30 | 31–40 | 41–50 | 51–60 | 61– |
| |
| No. of teeth | 350/1182 | 574/1326 | <0.001 | 469/1254 | 455/1254 | 0.562 | 114/316 | 408/1014 | 136/340 | 124/314 | 72/242 | 70/282 | <0.001 |
| Prevalence (%) | 29.6 | 43.3 | 37.4 | 36.3 | 36.1 | 40.2 | 40 | 39.5 | 29.8 | 24.8 |
Distribution of sample ratios among each subgroups was analyzed using the chi-squared test. Significant different prevalence between male and female and among age subgroups were observed (P value < 0.001).
Number and percentage of study subjects with C-shaped canals in the mandibular second molars by gender, unilateral, or bilateral status.
| Unilateral | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left, | Right, | Bilateral, | Total, | |
| No. of patients | ||||
| Female ( | 46 (6.9) | 30 (4.5) | 249 (37.6) | 325 (49.0) |
| Male ( | 26 (4.4) | 28 (4.7) | 148 (25.0) | 202 (34.2) |
| Total no. of patients ( | 72 (5.7) | 58 (4.6) | 397 (31.7) | 527 (42.0) |
Data were expressed as the number and percentage. Distribution of sample ratios among each subgroups was analyzed using the chi-squared test and significantly different (P value < 0.001).
The distribution of classification types according to age.
| Age |
| C1, | C2, | C3a, | C3b, | c4, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18–20 | 113 (100) | 63 (55.8) | 14 (12.4) | 13 (11.5) | 14 (12.4) | 9 (8) | |
| 21–30 | 402 (100) | 153 (38.1) | 86 (21.4) | 72 (17.9) | 77 (19.2) | 14 (3.5) | |
| 31–40 | 134 (100) | 49 (36.6) | 36 (26.9) | 22 (16.4) | 23 (17.2) | 4 (3) | |
| 41–50 | 124 (100) | 31 (25) | 33 (26.6) | 24 (19.4) | 34 (27.4) | 2 (1.6) | |
| 51–60 | 72 (100) | 17 (23.6) | 12 (16.7) | 17 (23.6) | 23 (31.9) | 3 (4.2) | |
| 61+ | 69 (100) | 10 (14.5) | 13 (18.8) | 12 (17.4) | 26 (37.7) | 8 (11.6) | |
| Total | 914 (100) | 323 (35.3) | 194 (21.2) | 160 (17.5) | 197 (21.6) | 40 (4.4) | |
|
| 18–20 vs. 21–30 | 0.001 | 0.045 | 0.140 | 0.127 | 0.075 | |
| 18–20 vs. 31–40 | 0.004 | 0.008 | 0.358 | 0.385 | 0.144 | ||
| 18–20 vs. 41–50 | <0.001 | 0.010 | 0.138 | 0.007 | 0.044 | ||
| 18–20 vs. 51–60 | <0.001 | 0.549 | 0.048 | 0.002 | 0.474 | ||
| 18–20 vs. 61+ | <0.001 | 0.331 | 0.369 | <0.001 | 0.580 | ||
| 21–30 vs. 31–40 | 0.837 | 0.234 | 0.793 | 0.701 | 1.000 | ||
| 21–30 vs. 41–50 | 0.011 | 0.275 | 0.817 | 0.065 | 0.447 | ||
| 21–30 vs. 51–60 | 0.026 | 0.451 | 0.329 | 0.022 | 1.000 | ||
| 21–30 vs. 61+ | <0.001 | 0.748 | 1.000 | 0.001 | 0.008 | ||
| 31–40 vs. 41–50 | 0.061 | 1.000 | 0.651 | 0.067 | 0.751 | ||
| 31–40 vs. 51–60 | 0.081 | 0.139 | 0.285 | 0.024 | 0.966 | ||
| 31–40 vs. 61+ | 0.002 | 0.275 | 1.000 | 0.002 | 0.032 | ||
| 41–50 vs. 51–60 | 0.964 | 0.156 | 0.600 | 0.610 | 0.533 | ||
| 41–50 vs. 61+ | 0.127 | 0.299 | 0.886 | 0.189 | 0.008 | ||
| 51–60 vs. 61+ | 0.245 | 0.907 | 0.481 | 0.590 | 0.184 |
To compare total sample ratios between age groups, the 2-sample proportion test was performed. A P value < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.
Figure 3Distribution of configuration types according to age.
Figure 4Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and panoramic views of teeth observed to have C-shaped canals on CBCT. (a) A case of a mandibular second molar with a fused root on a panoramic radiograph. (b) A case of a mandibular second molar with a separated root on a panoramic radiograph.
Distribution of configuration types in separated versus fused roots on panoramic radiographs of teeth with C-shaped canal on CBCT.
| Configuration type | Separated roots, | Fused roots, |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | 62 (25.6) | 279 (38.2) |
| C2 | 56 (23.1) | 153 (20.9) |
| C3a | 65 (26.9) | 121 (16.6) |
| C3b | 59 (24.4) | 178 (24.4) |
| Total | 242 | 731 |
|
| 0.863 | <0.001 |
Data were expressed as number and percentage. Distribution of sample ratios among each subgroups was analyzed using the chi-square test. Distribution of configuration types in fused roots was significantly different (P value < 0.001).
Mean values of the mesial, middle, and distal lingual wall thickness at the orifice and 5 mm from the apex by configuration type.
| Orifice | 5 mm from apex |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mesial zone thickness of the lingual wall | |||
| C1 | 0.91 ± 0.33 | 0.95 ± 0.32 | 0.222 |
| C2 | 1.04 ± 0.33 | 0.92 ± 0.32 | 0.463 |
| C3a | 0.73 ± 0.39 | 0.94 ± 0.33 | 0.365 |
| C3b | 1.41 ± 0.68 | 1.00 ± 0.33 | 0.036 |
| Middle zone thickness of the lingual wall | |||
| C1 | 2.23 ± 0.80 | 0.70 ± 0.28 | <0.001 |
| C2 | 2.60 ± 0.85 | 0.89 ± 0.41 | <0.001 |
| C3a | 2.31 ± 0.66 | 0.70 ± 0.31 | <0.001 |
| Distal zone thickness of the lingual wall | |||
| C1 | 1.44 ± 0.41 | 0.88 ± 0.31 | <0.001 |
| C2 | 1.30 ± 0.23 | 0.90 ± 0.27 | 0.038 |
| C3a | 1.46 ± 0.47 | 0.96 ± 0.34 | 0.042 |
| C3b | 1.12 ± 0.54 | 0.99 ± 0.35 | 0.274 |
Variables are presented as the mean ± standard deviation, and P values were computed using the Mann–Whitney U test. A P value < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.