Online first
Review article
Published online: 2024-06-18

open access

Page views 165
Article views/downloads 90
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Root anatomy and canal configuration of human permanent maxillary third molar — systematic review

Anna Olczyk1, Barbara Malicka1, Katarzyna Skośkiewicz-Malinowska1
Pubmed: 38895751

Abstract

Knowledge of the root canals configuration is essential for the success of endodontic treatment. The main aim of the systematic review is to determine the number of roots and the number of root canals in maxillary third molars, in addition, where possible, to determine the Vertucci classification. This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines. The study protocol was registered and approved on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (Reg. No: CRD42022366444) before the start of the study. Twelve studies were included in the analysis, differing in sample origin and methodology. The combined studies were analyzed based on the number of roots, number of canals, and root canal configurations, and the findings were compared with those of other international studies. Analyzing the available research results regarding the root anatomy and canal configuration of the third maxillary molar, the most commonly maxillary third molars had 3 roots (59.00%). Single-rooted teeth (24.20%) or double-rooted teeth (13.80%) were less common. In addition, it was observed that maxillary third molars typically possessed three root canals (47.28%) and the MB (mesiobuccal), DB (distobuccal), and P (palatal) canals most often showed Vertucci Type I (59.53%, 95.83% and 98.61%, respectively) in three-rooted form. Due to the small number of available studies, it is necessary to conduct further analyses taking into account demographic and ethnic differences that may affect the anatomical and morphological structure of the teeth.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Alamoudi R, Ghamri M, Mistakidis I, et al. Sexual dimorphism in third molar agenesis in humans with and without agenesis of other teeth. Biology (Basel). 2022; 11(12).
  2. Alavi AM, Opasanon A, Ng YL, et al. Root and canal morphology of Thai maxillary molars. Int Endod J. 2002; 35(5): 478–485.
  3. Al-Qudah AA, Bani Younis HA, Awawdeh LA, et al. Root and canal morphology of third molar teeth. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1): 6901.
  4. Aung NM, Myint KK. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT for detection of second canal of permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Dent. 2021; 2021: 1107471.
  5. Barbhai S, Shetty R, Joshi P, et al. Evaluation of root anatomy and canal configuration of human permanent maxillary first molar using cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(16).
  6. De Bruyn L, Vranckx M, Jacobs R, et al. A retrospective cohort study on reasons to retain third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 49(6): 816–821.
  7. Carter K, Worthington S. Morphologic and demographic predictors of third molar agenesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2015; 94(7): 886–894.
  8. Celikoglu M, Kazanci F, Miloglu O, et al. Frequency and characteristics of tooth agenesis among an orthodontic patient population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010; 15(5): e797–e801.
  9. Cleghorn BM, Christie WH, Dong CCS. Root and root canal morphology of the human permanent maxillary first molar: a literature review. J Endod. 2006; 32(9): 813–821.
  10. Domark JD, Hatton JF, Benison RP, et al. An ex vivo comparison of digital radiography and cone-beam and micro computed tomography in the detection of the number of canals in the mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars. J Endod. 2013; 39(7): 901–905.
  11. Endo S, Sanpei S, Ishida R, et al. Association between third molar agenesis patterns and agenesis of other teeth in a Japanese orthodontic population. Odontology. 2015; 103(1): 89–96.
  12. Estrela C, Bueno MR, Couto GS, et al. Study of root canal anatomy in human permanent teeth in a subpopulation of brazil's center region using cone-beam computed tomography — part 1. Braz Dent J. 2015; 26(5): 530–536.
  13. Faramarzi F, Shahriari S, Shokri A, et al. Radiographic evaluation of root and canal morphologies of third molar teeth in Iranian population. Avicenna J Dent Res. 2013; 5(1): 30–32.
  14. Ghasemi N, Rahimi S, Shahi S, et al. A review on root anatomy and canal configuration of the maxillary second molars. Iran Endod J. 2017; 12(1): 1–9.
  15. Gkantidis N, Tacchi M, Oeschger ES, et al. Third molar agenesis is associated with facial size. Biology (Basel). 2021; 10(7).
  16. Gulabivala K, Opasanon A, Ng YL, et al. Root and canal morphology of Thai mandibular molars. Int Endod J. 2002; 35(1): 56–62.
  17. Huang X, Lin J, Demner-Fushman D. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006; 2006: 359–363.
  18. Joshi PS, Shetty R, Sarode GS, et al. Root anatomy and canal configuration of human permanent mandibular second molar: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent. 2021; 24(4): 298–306.
  19. Karobari MI, Parveen A, Mirza MB, et al. Root and root canal morphology classification systems. Int J Dent. 2021; 2021: 6682189.
  20. Kim Y, Lee SJ, Woo J. Morphology of maxillary first and second molars analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography in a Korean population: variations in the number of roots and canals and the incidence of fusion. J Endod. 2012; 38(8): 1063–1068.
  21. Kim Y, Perinpanayagam H, Lee JK, et al. Comparison of mandibular first molar mesial root canal morphology using micro-computed tomography and clearing technique. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015; 73(6): 427–432.
  22. Lu TY, Yang SF, Pai SF. Complicated root canal morphology of mandibular first premolar in a Chinese population using the cross section method. J Endod. 2006; 32(10): 932–936.
  23. Mahesh R, Nivedhitha MS. Root canal morphology of primary mandibular second molar: a systematic review. Saudi Endod J. 2020; 10(1): 1.
  24. Martins JNR, Gu Y, Marques D, et al. Differences on the root and root canal morphologies between Asian and white ethnic groups analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2018; 44(7): 1096–1104.
  25. Mashyakhy M, AlTuwaijri N, Alessa R, et al. Anatomical evaluation of root and root canal morphology of permanent mandibular dentition among the Saudi Arabian population: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2022; 2022: 2400314.
  26. Mashyakhy M, Gambarini G. Root and root canal morphology differences between genders: a comprehensive CBCT study in a saudi population. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2019; 53(3): 213–246.
  27. Mufadhal AA, Madfa AA. The morphology of permanent maxillary first molars evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography among a Yemeni population. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1): 46.
  28. Naseri M, Kharazifard MJ, Hosseinpour S. Canal configuration of mesiobuccal roots in permanent maxillary first molars in iranian population: a systematic review. J Dent (Tehran). 2016; 13(6): 438–447.
  29. Ng YL, Aung TH, Alavi A, et al. Root and canal morphology of Burmese maxillary molars. Int Endod J. 2001; 34(8): 620–630.
  30. Olczak K, Pawlicka H. The morphology of maxillary first and second molars analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography in a polish population. BMC Med Imaging. 2017; 17(1): 68.
  31. Ordinola-Zapata R, Martins JNR, Plascencia H, et al. Optimizing endodontic irrigation: advantages of negative apical pressure technology. Dent Today. 2013; 32(5): 88, 90–88, 93.
  32. de Pablo OV, Estevez R, Péix Sánchez M, et al. Root anatomy and canal configuration of the permanent mandibular first molar: a systematic review. J Endod. 2010; 36(12): 1919–1931.
  33. Page MJ, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71.
  34. PEIRIS R. Root and canal morphology of human permanent teeth in a Sri Lankan and Japanese population. Anthropol Sci. 2008; 116(2): 123–133.
  35. Ratanajirasut R, Panichuttra A, Panmekiate S. A cone-beam computed tomographic study of root and canal morphology of maxillary first and second permanent molars in a Thai population. J Endod. 2018; 44(1): 56–61.
  36. Rawtiya M, Somasundaram P, Wadhwani S, et al. Retrospective study of root canal configurations of maxillary third molars in Central India population using cone beam computed tomography Part- I. Eur J Dent. 2016; 10(1): 97–102.
  37. Razumova S, Brago A, Howijieh A, et al. Evaluation of cross-sectional root canal shape and presentation of new classification of its changes using cone-beam computed tomography scanning. Appl Sci. 2020; 10(13): 4495.
  38. Razumova S, Brago A, Khaskhanova L, et al. A cone-beam computed tomography scanning of the root canal system of permanent teeth among the Moscow population. Int J Dent. 2018; 2018: 2615746.
  39. Scheiwiller M, Oeschger ES, Gkantidis N. Third molar agenesis in modern humans with and without agenesis of other teeth. PeerJ. 2020; 8: e10367.
  40. Sert S, Bayirli GS. Evaluation of the root canal configurations of the mandibular and maxillary permanent teeth by gender in the Turkish population. J Endod. 2004; 30(6): 391–398.
  41. Sert S, Sahinkesen G, Topçu FT, et al. Root canal configurations of third molar teeth. A comparison with first and second molars in the Turkish population. Aust Endod J. 2011; 37(3): 109–117.
  42. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 10.
  43. Sidow SJ, West LA, Liewehr FR, et al. Root canal morphology of human maxillary and mandibular third molars. J Endod. 2000; 26(11): 675–678.
  44. Silva E, Prado M, Duarte M, et al. Prevalence of root canal system configurations in the Brazilian population analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography — a systematic review. Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac. 2021; 62(2).
  45. Singh S, Pawar M. Root canal morphology of South Asian Indian maxillary molar teeth. Eur J Dent. 2015; 9(1): 133–144.
  46. Singh S, Pawar M, Podar R, et al. Root canal morphology of South Asian Indian mandibular first, second, and third molar: A dye penetration and clearing study. J Conserv Dent. 2020; 23(3): 284–288.
  47. Singh S, Ramachandran N, Podar R, et al. Methods to study root canal anatomy: a systematic review. Int J Sci Res. 2021: 27–31.
  48. Spioto MT, Juodzbalys G, Daugela P. Mandibular third molar impaction: review of literature and a proposal of a classification. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2013; 4(2): e1.
  49. Todor L, Matei RI, Muţiu G, et al. Morphological study of upper wisdom tooth. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2018; 59(3): 873–877.
  50. Tomaszewska IM, Leszczyński B, Wróbel A, et al. A micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) analysis of the root canal morphology of maxillary third molar teeth. Ann Anat. 2018; 215: 83–92.
  51. Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1984; 58(5): 589–599.
  52. Weine FS. Endodontic therapy. 1st ed. Mosby, St. Louis, Mo., Maryland Heights 2004.
  53. Weine FS, Healey HJ, Gerstein H, et al. Canal configuration in the mesiobuccal root of the maxillary first molar and its endodontic significance. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1969; 28(3): 419–425.
  54. Weng XL, Yu SB, Zhao SL, et al. Root canal morphology of permanent maxillary teeth in the Han nationality in Chinese Guanzhong area: a new modified root canal staining technique. J Endod. 2009; 35(5): 651–656.