Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics

Morphotypes of the apical constriction of maxillary molars: a micro-computed tomographic evaluation: Jeffrey Wen-Wei Chang, Kuzhanchinathan Manigandan, Lakshman Samaranayake, Chellapandian NandhaKumar, Pazhamalai AdhityaVasun, Johny Diji, Angambakkam Rajasekharan PradeepKumar; Restor Dent Endod 2022;47(2):e19. Published online March 24, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2022.47.e19

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub: Objectives
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the apical constriction (AC) and apical canal morphology of maxillary first and second molars, using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).
Materials and Methods
The anatomical features of 313 root canals from 41 maxillary first molars and 57 maxillary second molars of patients with known age and sex were evaluated using micro-CT, with a resolution of 26.7 µm. The factors evaluated were the presence or absence of AC, the morphotypes, bucco-lingual dimension, mesio-distal dimension, and the profile (shape) of AC and the apical root canal. The apical root canal dimensions, location of the apical foramen (AF), AC to AF distance, and presence of accessory canals in the apical 5 mm were also assessed. Descriptive and analytical statistics were used for data evaluation.
Results
AC was present in all 313 root canals. Patients’ age and sex did not significantly impact either AC or the apical canal dimensions. The most common AC morphotype detected was the traditional (single) constriction (52%), followed by the parallel (29%) morphotype. The mean AC dimensions in maxillary first molars were not significantly different from those in maxillary second molars. Sixty percent of AF were located within 0.5 mm from the anatomic apex.
Conclusions
The most common morphotype of AC detected was the traditional constriction. Neither patients’ age nor sex had a significant impact on the dimensions of the AC or the apical root canal. The majority of AF (60%) were located within 0.5 mm from the anatomic apex.

25 View
1 Download
3 Web of Science

In vitro evaluation of the consistency of two electronic apex locators: Gyu-Young Hwang, Byoung-Duck Roh, Eui-Sung Kim, Seung-Jong Lee; J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2008;33(1):20-27. Published online January 31, 2008; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.1.020

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the consistency of two electronic apex locators in vitro model.

Materials consisted of fifty two extracted premolars and two electronic apex locators; Root ZX (J. Morita, Osaka, Japan) and E-Magic Finder Deluxe (S-Denti, Cheonan, Korea). After access preparation, the teeth were embedded in a saline-mixed alginate model. Canal lengths of each tooth were measured at "0.5" and "Apex" mark of the apex locators, respectively so that each tooth had two measurements from 0.5 and Apex points. The file was fixed at final measurement using a glass ionomer cement. The apical 4 mm from the apex was exposed to measure the distance from the file tip to the major apical foramen of each tooth. Average distances and standard deviations were used to evaluate the consistency.

Results showed that all measurements of both Root ZX and E-Magic Finder located the major foramen the range of ± 0.5 mm level. Both apex locators showed better consistency at Apex mark than at 0.5 mark. The average distance of file tip-major foramen was - 0.18 mm at 0.5 mark and - 0.07 mm at Apex mark in Root ZX, - 0.25 mm at 0.5 mark and - 0.02 mm at Apex mark in E-Magic Finder. Standard deviation was 0.21 at 0.5 mark and 0.12 at Apex mark in Root ZX, 0.12 at 0.5 mark and 0.09 at Apex mark in E-Magic Finder.

19 View
0 Download

In vitro evaluation of accuracy and consistency of four different electronic apex locators: Jae-Hyun Cho, Kee-Yeon Kum, Seung-Jong Lee; J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2006;31(5):390-397. Published online September 30, 2006; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.5.390

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and the consistency of four different electronic apex locators in an in vitro model.

Fourty extracted premolars were used for the study. Four electronic apex locators (EAL) were Root ZX, SmarPex, Elements Diagnostic Unit (EDU), and E-Magic Finder Deluxe (EMF). After access preparation, the teeth were embedded in an alginate model and the length measurements were carried out at "0.5"and "Apex"mark using four EALs. The file was cemented at the location of the manufacturers'instruction (Root ZX, EDU, EMF: 0.5 mark, SmarPex: Apex mark). The apical 4mm of the apex was exposed and the distance from the file tip to the major foramen was measured by Image ProPlus (× 100). The distance from the file tip to the major foramen was calculated at 0.5 and Apex mark and the consistency of 0.5 and Apex mark was compared by SD and Quartile of Box plots.

In this study, Root ZX and EMF located the apical constriction accurately within ± 0.5 mm in 100%, whereas SmarPex and EDU located in 90% and in 70% respectively. For Root ZX and EMF, there was no significant difference between the consistency of 0.5 and Apex mark. However, for the EDU and SmarPex, Apex mark was more consistent than 0.5 mark.

From the evaluation of the consistency in this study, for Root ZX and EMF, both 0.5 and Apex mark can be used as a standard mark. And for EDU and SmarPex, the Apex mark can be recommended to be used as a standard mark.

19 View
0 Download

Search