Güneç Hüseyin Gürkan, Öreroğlu İpek, Çağlar Kemal, Cesur Aydin Kader
Department of Endodontics, Hamidiye Dental Faculty, Health Sciences University, Selimiye, Tıbbiye Cd, Üsküdar/İstanbul, 34668, Turkey.
Department of Endodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Bahçeşehir University, İstanbul, Turkey.
BMC Med Imaging. 2025 Jan 2;25(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s12880-024-01545-5.
This retrospective study aims to characterise the root canal morphology of maxillary and mandibular second molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The number of roots and canal configurations were evaluated using both the Vertucci and Benjamı´n Brisen˜ o Marroquı´n classification systems.
A total of 1084 second molar images (523 maxillary; 266 right and 257 left side and 561 mandibular; 285 right and 276 left side) were evaluated from 320 CBCT scans analyzed for the Turkish subpopulation. CBCT imaging provided superior visualisation of root canal anatomy compared to periapical radiography. The findings revealed diverse root canal configurations, with variations observed even within the same population. Statistical analyses, including the chi-squared test, were used to assess correlations between root number and demographic variables such as age and sex.
According to Benjamı´n Brisen˜ o Marroquı´n classification system, the most common configuration for upper right three-rooted teeth mesial root was URM (n:66, 35.7%), for distal root was URM (n:169, 91.4%), and for palatal root was URM (n:165, 89.2%). Additionally, the most common configuration for upper left three-rooted teeth mesial root was 27 (n:50, 28.4%), for distal root was ULM (n:160, 90.9%), and for palatal root was ULM (n:158, 89.8%). In lower left molars, the most common configuration in the two-rooted teeth mesial root was LLM (n:114, 49.4%), and for the distal root was LLM (n:170, 73.6%). For lower right the most common configuration for two-rooted teeth mesial root was LRM (n:125, 52.5%), and for distal root was LRM (n:173, 72.7%)(p < 0.05).
The primary outcome was observed that the root canal anatomy of upper and lower second molars may differ in both classifications of Turkish subpopulation. While Vertucci's classification was inadequate in some cases, Briseno-Marroquin classification was able to classify all upper and lower second molars with a single code. This new classification is a more useful system for classifying all second molars. There is a statistically significant difference exists among the new configuration according to the distribution of the teeth analyzed.
本回顾性研究旨在使用锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）对上下颌第二磨牙的根管形态进行特征描述。使用韦尔图奇（Vertucci）分类系统和本杰明·布里塞尼奥·马罗金（Benjamín Briseneño Marroquín）分类系统对牙根数量和根管形态进行评估。
从320例针对土耳其亚人群分析的CBCT扫描中，共评估了1084张第二磨牙图像（上颌523张；右侧266张，左侧257张；下颌561张；右侧285张，左侧276张）。与根尖片相比，CBCT成像能更好地显示根管解剖结构。研究结果显示出多样的根管形态，甚至在同一人群中也存在差异。使用包括卡方检验在内的统计分析方法来评估牙根数量与年龄、性别等人口统计学变量之间的相关性。
根据本杰明·布里塞尼奥·马罗金分类系统，右上颌三根牙的近中根最常见的形态是URM（n = 66，35.7%），远中根是URM（n = 169，91.4%），腭根是URM（n = 165，89.2%）。此外，左上颌三根牙的近中根最常见的形态是27（n = 50，28.4%），远中根是ULM（n = 160，90.9%），腭根是ULM（n = 158，89.8%）。在左下磨牙中，双根牙的近中根最常见的形态是LLM（n = 114，49.4%），远中根是LLM（n = 170，73.6%）。对于右下双根牙，近中根最常见的形态是LRM（n = 125，52.5%），远中根是LRM（n = 173，72.7%）（p < 0.05）。
主要观察结果是，在土耳其亚人群的两种分类中，上下颌第二磨牙的根管解剖结构可能存在差异。虽然韦尔图奇分类在某些情况下不够充分，但布里塞尼奥 - 马罗金分类能够用单一代码对所有上下颌第二磨牙进行分类。这种新分类是一种更有用的系统，可用于对所有第二磨牙进行分类。根据所分析牙齿的分布，新形态之间存在统计学上的显著差异。
