Next Article in Journal
Evaluating the Impact of Modic Changes on Operative Treatment in the Cervical and Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Pomegranate Extract Affects Fungal Biofilm Production: Consumption of Phenolic Compounds and Alteration of Fungal Autoinducers Release
Previous Article in Journal
Real-World Evidence—Current Developments and Perspectives
Previous Article in Special Issue
Diagnostic Accuracy of Pulp Vitality Tests and Pulp Sensibility Tests for Assessing Pulpal Health in Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 16
10.3390/ijerph191610160
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Evaluation of Root Anatomy and Canal Configuration of Human Permanent Maxillary First Molar Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review

by
Sourabh Barbhai
1,
Rajesh Shetty
1,
Poonam Joshi
1,
Vini Mehta
2,
Ankita Mathur
3,
Tanvi Sharma
3,
Damini Chakraborty
4,
Priyanka Porwal
3,
Aida Meto
5,
Dian Agustin Wahjuningrum
6,*,
Alexander Maniangat Luke
7,8,* and
Ajinkya M. Pawar
9,*
1
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune 411018, Maharashtra, India
2
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune 411018, Maharashtra, India
3
STAT SENSE, Srushti 10, Sector 1 D, Amba Township Pvt. Ltd., Trimandir, Adalaj 382421, Gujarat, India
4
Bhowal’s Dental and Implant Clinic, Bengal GreenField Heights, Galaxy-6FS, beside Apollo Pharmacy, DJ Block (Newtown), Newtown, Kolkata 700136, West Bengal, India
5
Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, University of Aldent, 1007 Tirana, Albania
6
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlingga, Surabaya 60132, East Java, Indonesia
7
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman 346, United Arab Emirates
8
Centre of Medical and Bio-allied Health Sciences Research, Ajman University, Ajman 346, United Arab Emirates
9
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai 400008, Maharashtra, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(16), 10160; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610160
Submission received: 21 July 2022 / Revised: 9 August 2022 / Accepted: 14 August 2022 / Published: 16 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical and Experimental Approaches in Dental Health)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this paper is to review the literature on root canal configuration (RCC) and the frequency of occurrence of a second mesiobuccal canal (MB) in human permanent maxillary first molars where cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is used. Online electronic databases such as PubMed-Medline, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched using appropriate keywords from the earliest available date until 12th June 2022, without restriction on language. In the mesiobuccal root, type I was the most frequent (33.29%), followed by types II and IV (27.18% and 26.36%, respectively). Moreover, 68.2% of maxillary first molars had a second MB canal. For both the distobuccal and palatal roots, type I was the most prevalent, with 99.08% and 97.83% occurrence, respectively. All other types were infrequent. Type I RCC is most frequent in all the roots of the maxillary first molars. Hence, care must be taken during biomechanical preparation of the MB roots.

1. Introduction

Dental caries is among the most common chronic diseases [1]. If left untreated it can progress and infect the pulp and, subsequently, the periapical tissues, leading to irreversible pulpitis or apical periodontitis, respectively. The treatment of choice is root canal therapy. The main aim of this therapy is to remove bacteria and infected materials from the pulp and periapical tissues and replace them with biocompatible material [2,3,4]. According to Siqueira JF et al. and Lin LM et al., complex root anatomy is the primary cause of endodontic treatment failure [5,6]. Among various races, and different individuals within the same race, the morphology of the pulp canal varies momentously [7]. Thus, knowledge of the root canal’s configuration is essential for endodontic success [8].
A root may contain a simple canal that tapers and terminates into the apical foramen, or the configuration can be more complex, with multiple interconnecting canals, lateral branches and multiple foramina. Classifications of root canal configurations (RCCs) have been given by several authors. Weine was the first to classify canals present in one root into four types [9]. In 1984, Vertucci analyzed the canal anatomy and gave a classification with eight different types of canals [10]. Later, Sert and Bayirli added additional types to the Vertucci classification, giving a total of XXIII types of root canal configuration [11]. Recently, in 2017, Ahmed H et al. developed a new code system to classify root canals that also includes the number of roots present [12].
To navigate through these complex canal systems, proper radiographic aid is crucial. Radiography is essential in the diagnosis, treatment planning and success of endodontic therapy [13]. However, conventional radiographs only provide a two-dimensional view, resulting in the incomplete detection of root canals [14,15]. However, a detailed three-dimensional view of a tooth, along with its surrounding anatomical structure, is possible with the help of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) [16,17]. Blattner T et al. reported that CBCT acts as a much superior imaging method when compared with traditional radiographs in the diagnosis of second mesiobuccal canals [18]. In a study by Matherne et al. in 2008, it was found that while using digital radiographs, endodontists failed to detect at least one root in 40% of the tooth when compared with using CBCT [19]. Additionally, using CBCT as a methodology for in vivo studies aids in obtaining a greater number of samples, as it helps the analysis of full dentition of several patients collected from a specific population in a consecutive manner, thus allowing for adequate statistical analysis [20,21]. In human dentition, maxillary first molars are the second-most common teeth to undergo root canal treatment, immediately after the mandibular first molars [22]. Additionally, performing endodontic treatment of the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first molars is a challenge due to the significant prevalence of additional canals and morphological variations [23].
The main aim of this systemic review is to analyze the available studies on the prevalence of root canal configuration of maxillary first molar teeth assessed using CBCT to help dentists to successfully identify the root anatomy, and subsequently to perform endodontic treatment successfully.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines [24]. The study protocol was registered and approved on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (Reg. No: CRD42021259436) before the start of the study.

2.1. Focused Question

What is the prevalence of root canal configuration and frequency of occurrence of a second mesiobuccal canal in the human permanent maxillary first molars where cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is used?

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

In vivo studies discussing the anatomy and canal configuration of permanent maxillary first molars were included. Only studies that used an in vivo CBCT methodology were included. The context included all of the in vivo studies carried out using CBCT, without excluding any country in the world. The population consisted of patients who had been subjected to CBCT, regardless of its diagnostic purposes. The primary outcome for this systematic review was to check the prevalence of root canal configurations of permanent maxillary first molars based on the Vertucci classification.

2.3. Exclusion Criteria

  • Studies using any classifications other than Vertucci.
  • Case reports, case series and reviews were excluded.

2.4. Search Strategy and Data Collection

A literature search was performed in four major electronic databases—PubMed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus—along with additional sources, such as Google Scholar, major journals, unpublished studies, conference proceedings and cross references. A comprehensive search to identify studies related to root anatomy and the canal morphology of permanent maxillary first molar teeth was conducted until 12 June 2022, utilizing keywords such as “Vertucci classification”, “maxillary first molars”, “root anatomy” and “root canal configuration”. No additional filters or language restrictions were kept while conducting the searches. Two authors independently carried out the literature search, reviewed the study articles and extracted data. The screening was performed in two stages. First, the titles and abstracts of all of the articles were reviewed, followed by full text screening. Those studies that fulfilled the selection criteria were processed for data extraction. Non-English language publications were translated into the English language using Google Translate [25]. The information was independently extracted by the two authors using specially-designed data-extraction forms utilizing Microsoft Excel software. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion between the authors. For each selected study, the following data were then extracted from a standard form (when available): author and year of publication, sample size, population, root number, root canal configuration, CBCT model and CBCT settings.

2.5. Quality Assessment

The checklist given by Martins JNR et al. in Preferred Reporting Items for Epidemiologic Cross-sectional Studies on Root and Root Canal Anatomy Using Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Technology was used for quality assessment [26]. The quality of the included articles was evaluated across 6 domains: title, keywords, aim, methodology, results and discussion. Two authors individually evaluated each topic in the abovementioned domains and gave a score of 1 (reported) or 0 (not reported) for each of the included articles.

3. Results

3.1. Search Selection and Results

After extensive searching, a total of 533 studies were identified, out of which 421 were duplicates. The remaining 112 studies underwent title and abstract screening, and 51 studies were selected for full text screening. Sixteen studies were excluded after full text screening. Thus, a total of 35 studies that met our inclusion criteria were processed for data extraction [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61] (Figure 1).

3.2. Study Characteristics

The 35 included studies were conducted across the globe, with wide demographic variations, and a total of 17278 permanent maxillary first molar teeth were identified. Nearly all the studies were conducted on adult populations, except for two [45,48]. One study was based on variations in RCC among various age groups, and one of the selected age groups was younger than twenty years [45]. The second study was conducted among children of age groups ranging between 9 and 12 years. All studies provided details of CBCT specifications except for the study by Raja M et al., where details about the CBCT were not available [51]. The details of CBCT software, setting, field of view (FOV), voxel size and visualization software are shown in Table 1.

3.3. Outcome

In total, 35 studies presented data on the canal configuration of maxillary first molars based on the Vertucci classification [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. The concurred data for most of these studies included both the percentage of occurrence and the number of cases. For a few studies, only the percentage of occurrence was given, and the exact value of the number of teeth for each specific canal type was calculated from the given percentage and sample size (number of teeth) taken for the study. To draw a definite conclusion among the myriad of data extracted from the studies and to interpret the data properly, each type’s total percentage was calculated for the mesiobuccal (MB), second mesiobuccal (MB2), distobuccal (DB) and palatal (P) canals separately.

3.4. Prevalence of Canal Configuration of Mesiobuccal Root Based on Vertucci Classification

Different studies, 31 of them, have reported the root canal configurations of the mesiobuccal root of the maxillary first molar [27,28,29,30,31,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,51,52,53,54,55,56,58,59,61]. The data from the studies were pooled to find the mean of all eight types of canal configurations based on Vertucci classification. Among them, type I was the most frequent, with 33.29%, followed by types II and IV with 27.18% and 26.36%, respectively.

3.5. Prevalence of Canal Configuration of the Second Mesiobuccal Root Based on Vertucci Classification

Only four studies reported the canal configuration of the second mesiobuccal root. Type II was seen to be the most frequent with 37.4%, followed by type IV and type I with 22.9% and 20.3%, respectively [32,50,57,60].

3.6. Prevalence of Canal Configuration of the Distobuccal Root Based on Vertucci Classification

Another 23 studies reported the canal configuration of the distobuccal root of the maxillary first molar [28,29,30,31,33,34,35,36,38,40,41,44,45,46,47,48,49,51,52,53,55,56,61]. Out of these, type I was the most prevalent, with a range from 97.83% to 99.08% occurrence.

3.7. Frequency of Occurrence of Second Mesiobuccal Canal

Additionally, 25 studies reported the presence of a second mesiobuccal canal. Out of the 12056 teeth, a total of 8223 teeth showed the occurrence of MB2 canals, i.e., 68.2% occurrence [27,28,29,30,32,35,36,37,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,47,48,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] (Table 2).

3.8. Quality Assessment

All included studies reported the following domains: aim of the study, morphology concept, assessment methodology, sample size and generalizability of the outcomes. Future research was the least reported domain, followed by the strengths and limitations of the study design. In the title, all studies mentioned CBCT but failed to indicate the type of study being conducted, except for one study by Kalender et al. which mentioned both [33] (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Before discussing the results, it must be noted that all the studies had variable CBCT settings and specifications. This, along with the demographic variations in the samples across the studies, will have some influence on the results. Among the studies included for this systematic review, three rooted maxillary first molars were most commonly reported. A similar finding was reported by Peris R et al. [62]. Some studies reported the presence of roots as being one, two and four, although these were infrequent [28,29,35,41,44,48]. Only three studies reported the RCC of maxillary molars with four roots, while only one study by Tian et al. in a Chinese population reported the RCC of the maxillary first molar with only one root [35,44,48]. Al-Shehri S et al. also reported the presence of fused roots along with RCC among maxillary first molars [41].
The main outcome of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of RCC among maxillary first molars. Most studies reported a higher prevalence of Vertucci types I, II and IV in the mesiobuccal root. After pooling the data from all the studies, type I was observed as the most prevalent type in MB roots, with 33.29% occurrence. Types II and IV had similar prevalence rates of 27.18% and 26.36%, respectively. Our findings are similar to those of other studies, which show type I to be the most prevalent, followed by types II and IV [63,64]. In a comparative study by Peris R et al. on Sri Lankan and Japanese populations, the same trend was seen for the Japanese population, but for Sri Lanka, the second most common was type V [62]. In two studies, type V was reported to have a higher frequency of occurrence [27,42]. Both of these studies were conducted on the Chinese population. In the study by Zang et al., among 299 tooth samples, 70% had type V, making it the most prevalent RCC type [27]. In the rest of the studies, other RCC types were infrequent and had a very low percentage of occurrence [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. Among 15196 teeth samples, only 0.36% of mesiobuccal roots were reported to have root canal configurations outside of the Vertucci classification, and only 9 studies out of 35 reported this finding [28,33,35,41,46,48,49,53]. In particular, four studies reported the root canal configuration of the second mesiobuccal canal [32,50,51,60]. All of them reported type II as the most frequently occurring RCC, followed by type III and type I. Among the four studies, a sample size of 2019 teeth, was present, of which 37.4% were type II [32,50,51,60]. None of the studies reported findings for type VIII.
The root canal configuration of the distobuccal and palatal roots was less complex. Both of these roots mostly had a single root canal. All studies, with no exception, reported type I as the most frequent root canal configuration in both the distobuccal and palatal roots. All other types were infrequent. Among the 11660 tooth samples, 97.83% of palatal roots and 99.08% of distobuccal roots had type I RCC. Thus, in all three roots, mesiobuccal, distobuccal and palatal, type I was the most prevalent root canal configuration in maxillary first molars. This finding is similar to three other studies that highlight a higher prevalence of type I and a very low frequency of occurrence in all other types in both distobuccal and palatal roots [61,65,66,67].
Twenty-five authors acknowledged the presence of an additional mesiobuccal canal, and most of them reported a higher prevalence of MB2 canals [27,28,29,30,32,35,36,37,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,47,48,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. In the study by Soh et al. on the Indian population, the frequency of occurrence of MB2 canals was the lowest, at only 30% [55]. Alsaket YM et al. in 2020 reported a maximum frequency of MB2 canals of 87% in their study on the population of Jordan [57]. The mean percentage of MB2 canals was 68.2%. Faraj BM in 2021 concluded that the MB2 canal was found in 53.78% of the teeth. In a study performed by Martins et al. looking at the worldwide prevalence of MB2 canals using CBCT, the overall prevalence was 73.8% [68]. Bentancourt P et al. found 69.82% of MB2 canals in their study on 1100 maxillary molars using CBCT [69]. Even though the CBCT specifications changed across the studies, the Newtom CBCT scanner was the most commonly used scanner. All the studies had a similar methodology for the assessment of the CBCT scans. Experienced endodontists or radiologists viewed the CBCT in 3 planes: axial, coronal and sagittal. For the identification of root anatomy, CBCT is a much better diagnostic tool than periapical radiography [70]. Abuabara A et al. reported that periapical radiographs can detect only 8% of MB2 canals, while with the help of CBCT, a second mesiobuccal canal can be detected in 54% of teeth [71]. Maxillary molars with 2 canals are frequently misdiagnosed, and 78.4% of MB2 canals remain unfilled [72]. Due to the higher presence of unexpected root canals in the maxillary mesiobuccal root, the chances of root canal treatment failure are higher [72,73]. However, in the distobuccal and palatal roots, the anatomy was simple. Type I RCC was highly prevalent, and the number of canals was mostly limited to one per root. Thus, the chances of missing a root canal or failed root canal therapy are lower. In this systematic review, we found that the mesiobuccal roots most commonly have type I RCC, followed by types II and IV. Gaêta-Araujo H et al. found that most teeth without endodontic technical errors had type I RCC [74]. If technical errors are present with type I, they are due to underfilling or nonhomogenous filling [75,76].
The sample sizes (number of teeth) among the studies varied. Thus, the percentages of studies with a small sample size (number of teeth) were higher, even though we tried to obtain a conclusive finding by calculating the percentages. Hence, pooling the data to find an overall mean percentage helped us to achieve a more conclusive result. However, our study has certain limitations. The inclusion criteria only helped to establish homogeneity among the methodologies used in various studies. However, the data collected had samples of patients from all age groups, genders and from different parts of the world, with varied ethnicities and genetic predispositions. These factors might have influenced the findings. Additionally, even though only studies using CBCT as a methodology were included, the CBCT parameters and specifications across all of the studies were not the same. In future studies, a more selective CBCT specification and data pooling based on ethnicities can be conducted to obtain more homogeneous results. The use of a limited-view CBCT device with specified resolution and lower voxel size will provide superior image quality, helping to explore the root and canal morphology more accurately. Root canal systems of maxillary first molars are complex and unpredictable. They vary among populations, and even in individuals in the same population. Cohort studies, in which the same individuals are observed over time, are necessary to analyze and describe various factors, such as age, which can determine whether MB canals narrow or calcify in a canal, and whether age can affect the number and size of the MB canals in maxillary molars.

5. Conclusions

From this systematic review, we can conclude that type I RCC is most frequent, based on the Vertucci classification of the maxillary first molars. Palatal and distobuccal roots have a more-or-less simple anatomy, with one canal and mostly type I configuration. However, the mesiobuccal root has a more complex anatomy due to the high frequency of occurrence of a second mesiobuccal canal; furthermore, in the mesiobuccal root, the occurrence of type II RCC, which is closely followed by type IV RCC, is more common. Hence, care must be taken during biomechanical preparation of the mesiobuccal roots. CBCT can act as an auxiliary to help endodontists obtain a better visualization of the anatomy of the mesiobuccal root and help in detecting additional canals, thus ensuring successful endodontic treatment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.B. and V.M.; methodology, P.J. and A.M. (Aida Meto); software, V.M.; validation, R.S., A.M. (Ankita Mathur) and D.C.; formal analysis, D.C.; investigation, T.S.; resources, P.P.; data curation, D.C.; writing—original draft preparation, V.M.; writing—review and editing, V.M.; visualization, D.C., A.M.P., D.A.W. and A.M.L.; supervision, R.S.; project administration, A.M. (Ankita Mathur). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The reported systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO reg no.: CRD42021259436 available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/export_details_pdf.php (accessed on 13 August 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Selwitz, R.H.; Ismail, A.I.; Pitts, N.B. Dental Caries. Lancet 2007, 369, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schilder, H. Cleaning and Shaping the Root Canal. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 1974, 18, 269–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Iandolo, A.; Michele, S.; Stefano, O.; Sandro, R. 3D Cleaning, a Perfected Technique: Thermal Profile Assessment of Heated Naocl. G. Ital. Endod. 2017, 31, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Iandolo, A.; Abdellatif, D.; Pantaleo, G.; Sammartino, P.; Amato, A. Conservative Shaping Combined with Three-Dimensional Cleaning Can Be a Powerful Tool: Case Series. J. Conserv. Dent. 2020, 23, 648–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Antunes, H.S.; Rôças, I.N.; Alves, F.R.F.; Siqueira, J.F. Total and Specific Bacterial Levels in the Apical Root Canal System of Teeth with Post-Treatment Apical Periodontitis. J. Endod. 2015, 41, 1037–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ricucci, D.; Siqueira, J.F. Fate of the Tissue in Lateral Canals and Apical Ramifications in Response to Pathologic Conditions and Treatment Procedures. J. Endod. 2010, 36, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Siqueira, J.F. Aetiology of Root Canal Treatment Failure: Why Well-Treated Teeth Can Fail. Int. Endod. J. 2001, 34, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lin, L.M.; Rosenberg, P.A.; Lin, J. Do Procedural Errors Cause Endodontic Treatment Failure? J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2005, 136, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ahmed, H.A.; Abu-bakr, N.H.; Yahia, N.A.; Ibrahim, Y.E. Root and Canal Morphology of Permanent Mandibular Molars in a Sudanese Population. Int. Endod. J. 2007, 40, 766–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Malagnino, V.; Gallottini, L.; Passariello, P. Some Unusual Clinical Cases on Root Anatomy of Permanent Maxillary Molars. J. Endod. 1997, 23, 127–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Weine, F.S.; Healey, H.J.; Gerstein, H.; Evanson, L. Canal Configuration in the Mesiobuccal Root of the Maxillary First Molar and Its Endodontic Significance. 1969. J. Endod. 2012, 38, 1305–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Vertucci, F.J. Root Canal Anatomy of the Human Permanent Teeth. Oral. Surg Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1984, 58, 589–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sert, S.; Bayirli, G.S. Evaluation of the Root Canal Configurations of the Mandibular and Maxillary Permanent Teeth by Gender in the Turkish Population. J. Endod. 2004, 30, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ahmed, H.M.A.; Dummer, P.M.H. Advantages and Applications of a New System for Classifying Roots and Canal Systems in Research and Clinical Practice. Eur. Endod. J. 2018, 3, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Reit, C.; Petersson, K.; Molven, O. Diagnosis of Pulpal and Periapical Disease. In Textbook of Endodontology; Blackwell Munksgaard: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003; pp. 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  16. Zheng, Q.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Q.; Zheng, G.; Huang, D. A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study of Maxillary First Permanent Molar Root and Canal Morphology in a Chinese Population. J. Endod. 2010, 36, 1480–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tu, M.-G.; Tsai, C.-C.; Jou, M.-J.; Chen, W.-L.; Chang, Y.-F.; Chen, S.-Y.; Cheng, H.-W. Prevalence of Three-Rooted Mandibular First Molars among Taiwanese Individuals. J. Endod. 2007, 33, 1163–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pinsky, H.M.; Dyda, S.; Pinsky, R.W.; Misch, K.A.; Sarment, D.P. Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Measurements Using Cone-Beam CT. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2006, 35, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lo Giudice, G.; Iannello, G.; Terranova, A.; Lo Giudice, R.; Pantaleo, G.; Cicciù, M. Transcrestal Sinus Lift Procedure Approaching Atrophic Maxillary Ridge: A 60-Month Clinical and Radiological Follow-Up Evaluation. Int. J. Dent. 2015, 2015, 261652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Blattner, T.C.; George, N.; Lee, C.C.; Kumar, V.; Yelton, C.D.J. Efficacy of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography as a Modality to Accurately Identify the Presence of Second Mesiobuccal Canals in Maxillary First and Second Molars: A Pilot Study. J. Endod. 2010, 36, 867–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Matherne, R.P.; Angelopoulos, C.; Kulild, J.C.; Tira, D. Use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography to Identify Root Canal Systems In Vitro. J. Endod. 2008, 34, 87–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martins, J.N.R.; Marques, D.; Silva, E.J.N.L.; Caramês, J.; Versiani, M.A. Prevalence Studies on Root Canal Anatomy Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Imaging: A Systematic Review. J. Endod. 2019, 45, 372–386.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Martins, J.N.R.; Versiani, M.A. CBCT and Micro-CT on the Study of Root Canal Anatomy. In The Root Canal Anatomy in Permanent Dentition; Versiani, M.A., Basrani, B., Sousa-Neto, M.D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 89–180. [Google Scholar]
  24. Yousuf, W.; Khan, M.; Mehdi, H. Endodontic Procedural Errors: Frequency, Type of Error, and the Most Frequently Treated Tooth. Int. J. Dent. 2015, 2015, 673914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Verma, P.; Love, R.M. A Micro CT Study of the Mesiobuccal Root Canal Morphology of the Maxillary First Molar Tooth. Int. Endod. J. 2011, 44, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Balk, E.M.; Chung, M.; Hadar, N.; Patel, K.; Yu, W.W.; Trikalinos, T.A.; Chang, L.K.W. Accuracy of Data Extraction of Non-English Language Trials with Google Translate; Report No.: 12-EHC056-EF; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, USA, 2012.
  28. Martins, J.N.R.; Kishen, A.; Marques, D.; Nogueira Leal Silva, E.J.; Caramês, J.; Mata, A.; Versiani, M.A. Preferred Reporting Items for Epidemiologic Cross-Sectional Studies on Root and Root Canal Anatomy Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Technology: A Systematized Assessment. J. Endod. 2020, 46, 915–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhang, R.; Yang, H.; Yu, X.; Wang, H.; Hu, T.; Dummer, P.M.H. Use of CBCT to Identify the Morphology of Maxillary Permanent Molar Teeth in a Chinese Subpopulation. Int. Endod. J. 2011, 44, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kim, Y.; Lee, S.-J.; 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, 1063–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tocci, L.; Plotino, G.; Grande, N.M.; Testarelli, L.; Messineo, D.; Ciotti, M.; Gambarini, G. Analysis of root and root canal morphology of maxillary and mandibular molars in a Caucasian population: CBCT study in vivo. G. Ital. Endod. 2013, 27, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guo, J.; Vahidnia, A.; Sedghizadeh, P.; Enciso, R. Evaluation of Root and Canal Morphology of Maxillary Permanent First Molars in a North American Population by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J. Endod. 2014, 40, 635–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Altunsoy, M.; Ok, E.; Nur, B.G.; Aglarci, O.S.; Gungor, E.; Colak, M. Root Canal Morphology Analysis of Maxillary Permanent First and Second Molars in a Southeastern Turkish Population Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J. Dent. Sci. 2015, 10, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abarca, J.; Gómez, B.; Zaror, C.; Monardes, H.; Bustos, L.; Cantin, M. Determinación de la Morfología de la Raíz Mesial y la Frecuencia del Canal MB2 en Molares Maxilares Usando Tomografía Computadorizada de Haz Cónico. Int. J. Morphol. 2015, 33, 1333–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kalender, A.; Celikten, B.; Tufenkci, P.; Aksoy, U.; Basmacı, F.; Kelahmet, U.; Orhan, K. Cone Beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Maxillary Molar Root Canal Morphology in a Turkish Cypriot Population. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2016, 30, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Naseri, M.; Safi, Y.; Akbarzadeh Baghban, A.; Khayat, A.; Eftekhar, L. Survey of Anatomy and Root Canal Morphology of Maxillary First Molars Regarding Age and Gender in an Iranian Population Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Iran. Endod. J. 2016, 11, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tian, X.-M.; Yang, X.-W.; Qian, L.; Wei, B.; Gong, Y. Analysis of the Root and Canal Morphologies in Maxillary First and Second Molars in a Chinese Population Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J. Endod. 2016, 42, 696–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Martins, J.N.R.; Marques, D.; Mata, A.; Caramês, J. Root and Root Canal Morphology of the Permanent Dentition in a Caucasian Population: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study. Int. Endod. J. 2017, 50, 1013–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Al-Kadhim, A.H.; Rajion, Z.A.; Malik, N.A.B.; Bin Jaafar, A. Morphology of Maxillary First Molars Analyzed by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography among Malaysian: Variations in the Number of Roots and Canals and the Incidence of Fusion. Int. Med. J. Malays. 2017, 16, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pérez-Heredia, M.; Ferrer-Luque, C.M.; Bravo, M.; Castelo-Baz, P.; Ruíz-Piñón, M.; Baca, P. Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Study of Root Anatomy and Canal Configuration of Molars in a Spanish Population. J. Endod. 2017, 43, 1511–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zand, V.; Mokhtari, H.; Zonouzi, H.R.; Shojaei, S.N. Root Canal Morphologies of Mesiobuccal Roots of Maxillary Molars Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Radiographic Techniques in an Iranian Population. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2017, 18, 745–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ghobashy, A.M.; Nagy, M.M.; Bayoumi, A.A. Evaluation of Root and Canal Morphology of Maxillary Permanent Molars in an Egyptian Population by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J. Endod. 2017, 43, 1089–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Al-Shehri, S.; Al-Nazhan, S.; Shoukry, S.; Al-Shwaimi, E.; Al-Sadhan, R.; Al-Shemmery, B. Root and Canal Configuration of the Maxillary First Molar in a Saudi Subpopulation: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study. Saudi Endod. J. 2017, 7, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, H.; Ci, B.-W.; Yu, H.-Y.; Qin, W.; Yan, Y.-X.; Wu, B.-L.; Ma, D.-D. Evaluation of Root and Canal Morphology of Maxillary Molars in a Southern Chinese Subpopulation: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Study. Int. J. Clin. Exp. 2017, 10, 7030–7039. Available online: https://e-century.us/files/ijcem/10/4/ijcem0045172.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  45. Khademi, A.; Zamani Naser, A.; Bahreinian, Z.; Mehdizadeh, M.; Najarian, M.; Khazaei, S. Root Morphology and Canal Configuration of First and Second Maxillary Molars in a Selected Iranian Population: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Evaluation. Iran. Endod. J. 2017, 12, 288–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ghoncheh, Z.; Zade, B.M.; Kharazifard, M.J. Root Morphology of the Maxillary First and Second Molars in an Iranian Population Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J. Dent. 2017, 14, 115–122. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694843/pdf/JOD-14-115.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2022).
  47. Martins, J.N.R.; Ordinola-Zapata, R.; Marques, D.; Francisco, H.; Caramês, J. Differences in Root Canal System Configuration in Human Permanent Teeth within Different Age Groups. Int. Endod. J. 2018, 51, 931–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Martins, J.N.R.; Gu, Y.; Marques, D.; Francisco, H.; Caramês, J. Differences on the Root and Root Canal Morphologies between Asian and White Ethnic Groups Analyzed by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J. Endod. 2018, 44, 1096–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Razumova, S.; Brago, A.; Khaskhanova, L.; Barakat, H.; Howijieh, A. Evaluation of Anatomy and Root Canal Morphology of the Maxillary First Molar Using the Cone-Beam Computed Tomography among Residents of the Moscow Region. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2018, 9, S133–S136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. 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, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Martins, J.N.R.; Marques, D.; Francisco, H.; Caramês, J. Gender Influence on the Number of Roots and Root Canal System Configuration in Human Permanent Teeth of a Portuguese Subpopulation. Quintessence Int. 2018, 49, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gomes Alves, C.R.; Martins Marques, M.; Stella Moreira, M.; Harumi Miyagi de Cara, S.P.; Silveira Bueno, C.E.; Lascala, C.Â. Second Mesiobuccal Root Canal of Maxillary First Molars in a Brazilian Population in High-Resolution Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Iran. Endod. J. 2018, 13, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Raja, M.; Pradeep, S.; Mohan, M. Root canal morphology of maxillary first molar using cone-beam computed tomography in south Indian population. J. Pharm. Res. 2018, 12, 4. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pan, J.Y.Y.; Parolia, A.; Chuah, S.R.; Bhatia, S.; Mutalik, S.; Pau, A. Root Canal Morphology of Permanent Teeth in a Malaysian Subpopulation Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. BMC Oral Health 2019, 19, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Mohara, N.T.; Coelho, M.S.; de Queiroz, N.V.; Borreau, M.L.S.; Nishioka, M.M.; de Jesus Soares, A.; Frozoni, M. Root Anatomy and Canal Configuration of Maxillary Molars in a Brazilian Subpopulation: A 125-Μm Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Study. Eur. J. Dent. 2019, 13, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. de Miranda Candeiro, G.T.; Gonçalves, S.D.S.; de Araújo Lopes, L.L.; de Freitas Lima, I.T.; Alencar, P.N.B.; Iglecias, E.F.; Silva, P.G.B. Internal Configuration of Maxillary Molars in a Subpopulation of Brazil’s Northeast Region: A CBCT Analysis. Braz. Oral Res. 2019, 33, e082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Soh, N. Evaluation of Root Canal Morphology of Maxillary 1st Molars Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Chennai Population. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2019, 11, 2750–2754. Available online: https://jpsr.pharmainfo.in/Documents/Volumes/vol11issue07/jpsr11071948.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  58. Al Mheiri, E.; Chaudhry, J.; Abdo, S.; El Abed, R.; Khamis, A.H.; Jamal, M. Evaluation of Root and Canal Morphology of Maxillary Permanent First Molars in an Emirati Population; a Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study. BMC Oral Health 2020, 20, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Alsaket, Y.; El-ma’aita, A.; Aqrabawi, J.; Alhadidi, A. Prevalence and Configuration of the Second Mesiobuccal Canal in the Permanent Maxillary First Molar in Jordanian Population Sample. Iran. Endod. J. 2020, 15, 217–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, Y.; Yang, W.; Wang, W.; Zhu, Y.; Lin, Z.; Zhu, M. Relationship between Canal Morphology and Isthmus in Mesio-Buccal Roots of Maxillary First Molars in 9- to 12-Year-Old Children: An In-Vivo Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Analysis. Arch. Oral Biol. 2020, 112, 104645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Popović, M.; Živanović, S.; Vučićević, T.; Grujović, M.; Papić, M. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study of Tooth Root and Canal Morphology of Permanent Molars in a Serbian Population. Vojnosanit. Pregl. 2020, 77, 470–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Al-Saedi, A.; Al-Bakhakh, B.; Al-Taee, R.G. Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography to Determine the Prevalence of the Second Mesiobuccal Canal in Maxillary First Molar Teeth in a Sample of an Iraqi Population. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dent. 2020, 12, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nikkerdar, N.; Asnaashari, M.; Karimi, A.; Araghi, S.; Seifitabar, S.; Golshah, A. Root and Canal Morphology of Maxillary Teeth in an Iranian Subpopulation Residing in Western Iran Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Iran. Endod. J. 2020, 15, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Peiris, R. Root and Canal Morphology of Human Permanent Teeth in a Sri Lankan and Japanese Population. Anthropol. Sci. 2008, 116, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Campos Netto, P.D.A.; Dos Santos Accioly Lins, C.C.; Lins, C.V.; Lima, G.A.; Gomes Frazão, M.A. Study of the Internal Morphology of the Mesiobuccal Root of Upper First Permanent Molar Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Int. J. Morphol. 2011, 29, 617–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Buyukbayram, I.; Kartal, N. Evaluation of Complex Mesiobuccal Root Anatomy in Maxillary First Molar Teeth. Int. J. Morphol. 2018, 36, 460–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rouhani, A.; Bagherpour, A.; Akbari, M.; Azizi, M.; Nejat, A.; Naghavi, N. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Maxillary First and Second Molars in Iranian Population: A Morphological Study. Iran. Endod. J. 2014, 9, 190–194. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4099950/pdf/iej-9-190.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2022).
  68. Weng, X.-L.; Yu, S.-B.; Zhao, S.-L.; Wang, H.-G.; Mu, T.; Tang, R.-Y.; Zhou, X.-D. 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, 651–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Faraj, B.M. The Frequency of the Second Mesiobuccal Canal in Maxillary First Molars among a Sample of the Kurdistan Region-Iraq Population—A Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Evaluation. J. Dent. Sci. 2021, 16, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Martins, J.N.R.; Alkhawas, M.-B.A.M.; Altaki, Z.; Bellardini, G.; Berti, L.; Boveda, C.; Chaniotis, A.; Flynn, D.; Gonzalez, J.A.; Kottoor, J.; et al. Worldwide Analyses of Maxillary First Molar Second Mesiobuccal Prevalence: A Multicenter Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Study. J. Endod. 2018, 44, 1641–1649.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Betancourt, P.; Navarro, P.; Muñoz, G.; Fuentes, R. Prevalence and Location of the Secondary Mesiobuccal Canal in 1100 Maxillary Molars Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. BMC. Med. Imaging 2016, 16, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sousa, T.O.; Haiter-Neto, F.; Nascimento, E.H.L.; Peroni, L.V.; Freitas, D.Q.; Hassan, B. Diagnostic Accuracy of Periapical Radiography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Identifying Root Canal Configuration of Human Premolars. J. Endod. 2017, 43, 1176–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Abuabara, A.; Baratto-Filho, F.; Aguiar Anele, J.; Leonardi, D.P.; Sousa-Neto, M.D. Efficacy of Clinical and Radiological Methods to Identify Second Mesiobuccal Canals in Maxillary First Molars. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2013, 71, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gaêta-Araujo, H.; Fontenele, R.C.; Nascimento, E.H.L.; do Carmo Chagas Nascimento, M.; Freitas, D.Q.; de Oliveira-Santos, C. Association between the Root Canal Configuration, Endodontic Treatment Technical Errors, and Periapical Hypodensities in Molar Teeth: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Study. J. Endod. 2019, 45, 1465–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Nascimento, E.H.L.; Gaêta-Araujo, H.; Andrade, M.F.S.; Freitas, D.Q. Prevalence of Technical Errors and Periapical Lesions in a Sample of Endodontically Treated Teeth: A CBCT Analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 2495–2503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Song, M.; Kim, H.-C.; Lee, W.; Kim, E. Analysis of the Cause of Failure in Nonsurgical Endodontic Treatment by Microscopic Inspection during Endodontic Microsurgery. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 1516–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 10160 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart summarizing the article selection process (n—number of studies).
Figure 1. Flowchart summarizing the article selection process (n—number of studies).
Ijerph 19 10160 g001
Table
Table 1. Cone-beam computed tomography parameter values of each study.
Table 1. Cone-beam computed tomography parameter values of each study.
Study/Year of PublicationCountryCBCT ModelVoxel SizeFOVSettings CBCTSoftware Visualization
Zang R et al./2011 [27]China3D Accuitomo scanner (Morita, Kyoto, Japan)0.125 mm40 mm or 60 mm80 kV and 5.0 mA,
time 17 s		i-Dixel one volume viewer 1.5.0 and a Dell Precision T5400 workstation (Dell, Round Rock, TX, USA)
Kim Y et al./2012 [28]KoreaDinnova system (Willmed, Gwangmyeong, Korea)0.167-mm310 cm80 kVp, 9.0 mAOnDemand3D software (Cybermed, Seoul, Korea).
Tocci L et al./2013 [29]ItalyNewTom VGi Vertical Cone Beam (Verona, Italia)0.3 mm15 cm110 Kvp, 1–20 mAs, 15 mSvNA
Guo J et al./2014 [30]USASirona Galileos device (Sirona Dental Systems, Inc, Long Island City, NY, USA)0.3/0.15 mm.15 cm85 kV and 5–7 mAThe Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format images were exported from Galileos and imported into InVivo Dental Application 5.1.6 software (Anatomage Inc., San Jose, CA, USA).
Altunsoy M et al./2014 [31]TurkeyCBCT scanner (ICAT Vision; Imaging Science International, Hatfield, PA, USA)0.3 mmNA120 kVp, and 18.54 mA, 8 sNA
Abarca J. et al./2015 [32]ChileGendex CB500 imaging system0.2 mmNA120 kVp and 5 mA and 0.2 mm thickness of the cut iCATVision software v 1.8.1.10 in a darkroom on 21” LCD monitors with a resolution of 1280 × 1024 pixels.
Kalender A et al./2015 [33]TurkeyNewtom 3G: Quantitative Radiology s.r.l., Verona, ItalyNA9 inchNANNT 4.6, QR Verona, Italy
Naseri M et al./2016 [34]IranNewTom VGi (QR SRL Company, Verona, Italy)200 µm8 × 12 cm110 kVp and exposure time of 3.6 sNewTom NNT software version 5.3 (Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy)
Tian X et al./2016 [35]ChineseNewTom VG; QR srl, Verona, Italy0.16 mm500 cm2 (20 × 25 cm)110 kVp and 10 mA, 18 s NNT software version 2.21 (ImageWorks, Elmsford, NY, USA)
Martins J.N.R et al./2016(I) [36]PortugalPlanmeca scanner (Planmeca Promax, Planmeca, Finland)0.2 mmNA80 kv, 15 mA, 12 sPlanmeca Romexis, Planmeca
Al-Kadhim A et al./2017 [37]MalaysiaNANANANAOne Data Viewer software (J. Morita Manufacturing Corp).
Perez M et al./2017 [38]Spain9300 3D CBCT unit (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, GA, USA)0.18 mm10 × 10 cm90 kV, 4 mA, 8 sCarestream software (CS 3D Imaging software 6.1.4)
Zand V et al./2017 [39]IranNewTom GI CBCT (Verona/Italy)NANA110 kVp, 18 sNNT viewer software program
Ghobasby A et al./2017 [40]EgyptCranex 3D (Soredex
,Tuusula, Finland)		133-μmNA80 kVp, 9.0 mANA
Al-Shehri S et al./2017 [41]Saudi Arabia1. I-CAT (Imaging Science International, Hatfield, PA, USA),
2. Galileos (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany),
3.Carestream CS 9300 (Carestream Health, Inc., Rochester, NY, USA).		0.3 mm (14-bit grayscale)NA85 kV, 5–7 mAOnDemand3D software (Cybermed, Seoul, Korea)
Wang H et al./2017 [42]ChinaPlanmeca Romexis 3D CBCT scanner (Planmeca, Finland)200 μmNA84 kV and 14 mA,12 s, the minimum slice thickness
was 0.2 mm.		The CBCT images were 3D-reconstructed by using a patented Feldkamp reconstruction algorithm, analysed with inbuilt software and ran in a 32-bit Windows 7 system.
Khademi A et al./2017 [43]IranGalileos (Sirona Dental Systems Inc., Bensheim, Germany)150 μm150 × 150 or 75 × 150 mm85 kVp, 42 mASIDEXIS XG software version 3.7 (Sirona Dental System GmbH, Bensheim, Germany).
Ghoncheh Z/2017 [44]IranNewTom VG CBCT system (Image Works, Verona, Italy)0.3 mm(11 × 16 cm110 kV, 1–20 mA, 3.6–5.4 s.NNT Viewer software (NNT 2.21; Image Works, Verona, Italy).
Martins J.N.R et al./2018(II) [45]PortugalPlanmeca Promax, Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland0.20 mmNA80 kV, 15 mA, 12 sRomexis visualization software (Planmeca)
Martins J.N.R et al./2018(III) [46]ChinaKodak 95000.2 mmFull Arch90 kV, 10 mA, 10.8 sCS 900 3D imaging
PortugalPlanmeca Promax0.2 mmFull Arch80 kV,15 mA, 12 sPlanmeca Romexis
Razmuvo S et al./2018 [47]Moscow3D eXam (KaVo,
Biberach, Germany)		0.3 mm23 cm × 17 cm110 kV, 1.6–20 sg I-CAT viewer software (version 10, Hatfield, England).
Ratanajirasut et al./2018 [48]Thai3D Accuitomo CBCT machine (J Morita Manufacturing Corp, Kyoto, Japan0.25 mm × 0.25 mm100.025 × 100.02580 kVp,5 mA, 17.5 sg One Volume Viewer software (J Morita Manufacturing Corp)
Martins J.N.R et al./2018(IV) [49]PortugalPlanmeca Promax0.2 mm 80 kV,15 mA, 12 sPlanmeca Romexis
Alves CRG et al./2018 [50]BrazilPrexion 3D Elite model XP68 (PreXion Inc., San Mateo, California, USA),0.15 mm (for FOV 8) and 0.11 mm (for FOV 5)5 [5.6 cm × 5.2 cm (partial jaw) ] or 8 [8.1 cm × 7.5 cm (total jaw)]90 Kvp and 4 mA, 37 s3D software PreXion Image Analysis System (PreXion Inc. San Mateo, California, USA)
Raja M et al./2018 [51]IndiaNANANAThe CBCT scanner was set at a constant slice thickness of 125 μm/sliceNA
Pan YJ et al./2019 [52]MalaysiaKaVo 3D eXam imaging system (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, PA, USA).0.25 mmNA121 kVp, 5 mA, 26.9 seXam Vision software version 1.9.3.13 (KaVo Dental GmbH, Biberach, Germany)
Mohara NT et al./2019 [53]Brazila 3D Accuitomo 80 CBCT (J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan)NA40 mm or 60 mm90 KVA, 8 mA, 18 s i-Dixel (J Morita, Tokyo, Japan)
Candeiro GTM et al./2019 [54]BrazilPrexion 3D imaging device (Prexion, Inc., San Mateo, USA)0.125 mmNA90 kVp and 4 mA(Prexion, Inc., San Mateo, USA) was used on a Dell Precision T5400 (Dell, Round Rock, TX, USA)
Soh N et al./2019 [55]IndiaNA
Al Mheiri E et al./2019 [56]United Arab EmiratesPlanmeca ProMax CBCT scanner (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland)0.4 mm16 × 11 cm 120 kVp, 18.54 mA, 8.9 siMAC computer ([27-in. screen size with Retina 5 K display, 5120 × 2880 resolution with support for 1 billion colors, 500 nits brightness], Apple, USA) in a room with controlled lighting using the Horos DICOM viewer
Alsaket YM et al./2020 [57]JordanCarestream Dental, Rochester, NY, USANANANANA
Liu Y et al./2020 [58]ChinaNewTom VG scanner (QR srl, Verona, Italy)0.125 mmSmallNA3D reconstructed with an open source software platform 3D Slicer 4.8.1 from Slicer web site
Popovic M et al./2020 [59]SerbiaOrthophos XG 3D device (Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, Bensheim, Germany)160 μm0.16 mmNAGALAXIS v1.9.4 (Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, Bensheim, Germany)
Al-Saedi A et al./2020 [60]IraqGendex (GXDP-7000)
CBCT machine (Hatfield, PA, USA)		200 µm80.0 × 80.0 × 60.0 mm90 kV,10 mA, 13 sSoftware GxPicture; Kavo Dental, Biberach a der Riss, Germany built into the Invivo 5 dental viewer (Anatomage, San Jose, CA, USA) and run on a 64-bit Windows 7 system (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA)
Nikkerdar N et al./2020 [61]IranNew Tom VGi CBCT system (QR SRL Co., Verona, Italy)0.15 mm120 × 80 mm110 kVp, 10 mA, 5.4 sNNT Viewer version 7.2 software on a 12.5-inch laptop (Asus) with 1080 × 1920 p resolution
CBCT: cone beam computed tomography, FOV: field of view, mm: millimeter, µm: micrometer, kVp: kilovoltage peak mA: milliamper, s: seconds, mSv: millisievert.
Table
Table 2. Prevalence of MB2 canals in maxillary first molars.
Table 2. Prevalence of MB2 canals in maxillary first molars.
Study/Year of PublicationSample Size (n)PopulationMB2 Canals
n (%)
Zang R et al./2011 [27]299China155 (52%)
Kim Y et al./2012 [28]814Korea510 (62.65%)
Tocci L et al./2013 [29]161Italy62 (40.3%)
Guo J et al./2014 [30]628USA428 (68.2%)
Abarca J. et al./2015 [32]802Chile802 (73.44%)
Tian X et al./2016 [35]1536China820 (53.9%)
Martins J.N.R et al./2016 (I) [36]421Malaysia191 (45.6%)
Al-Kadhim A et al./2017 [37]494Portugal350 (71.05%)
Zand V et al./2017 [39]156Iran86 (55.11%)
Ghobasby A et al./2017 [40]605Egypt451 (74.5%)
Al-Shehri S et al./2017 [41]330Saudi Arabia195 (55.6%)
Wang H et al./2017 [42]939China641 (68.3%)
Khademi A et al./2017 [43]389Iran272 (70.2%)
Ghoncheh Z/2017 [44]337Iran155 (46%)
Martins J.N.R et al./2018 (III) [46]239China552 (67.35%)
Razmuvo S et al./2018 [47]410Moscow382 (59.8%)
Ratanajirasut et al./2018 [48]476Thai303 (63.6%)
Alves CRG et al./2018 [50]362Brazil247 (68.23%)
Raja M et al./2018 [51]500Indian400 (80%)
Pan YJ et al./2019 [52]344Malaysia125 (36.3%)
Mohara NT et al./2019 [53]326Brazil209 (64.22%)
Candeiro GTM et al./2019 [54]700Brazil337 (48.21%)
Soh N et al./2019 [55]66India20 (30%)
Al Mheiri E et al./2019 [56]522United Arab Emirates418 (80.1%)
Alsaket YM et al./2020 [57]200Jordan174 (87%)
Total12,056 8223 (68.2%)
Table
Table 3. Specific preferred reporting items for cross-sectional studies on root and root canal anatomy using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Table 3. Specific preferred reporting items for cross-sectional studies on root and root canal anatomy using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Sr. No.Section ItemTotal (n)Percentage (%)
1Title3394.29
Introduction
2Keywords3291.43
3Aim35100.00
Methods
4Participants (in vivo assessment)3394.29
5CBCT3394.29
6Morphology concept & assessed teeth (variables)35100.00
7Assessment35100.00
8Observers2777.14
9Potential sources of bias2160.00
10Final sample size35100.00
11Reliability2571.43
12Statistical analysis3394.29
13Ethics committee Results2468.57
14Primary Outcomes3497.14
15Other analysis2880.00
16Visual documentation Support3188.57
Discussion
17Outcome interpretation35100.00
18Strength & limitations2365.71
19Generalizability35100.00
20Future research514.29
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barbhai, S.; Shetty, R.; Joshi, P.; Mehta, V.; Mathur, A.; Sharma, T.; Chakraborty, D.; Porwal, P.; Meto, A.; Wahjuningrum, D.A.; 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, 10160. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610160

AMA Style

Barbhai S, Shetty R, Joshi P, Mehta V, Mathur A, Sharma T, Chakraborty D, Porwal P, Meto A, Wahjuningrum DA, et al. Evaluation of Root Anatomy and Canal Configuration of Human Permanent Maxillary First Molar Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(16):10160. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610160

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barbhai, Sourabh, Rajesh Shetty, Poonam Joshi, Vini Mehta, Ankita Mathur, Tanvi Sharma, Damini Chakraborty, Priyanka Porwal, Aida Meto, Dian Agustin Wahjuningrum, and et al. 2022. "Evaluation of Root Anatomy and Canal Configuration of Human Permanent Maxillary First Molar Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 16: 10160. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610160

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop