Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 5110
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE  
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 57-62
Radiographic and micro-computed tomography classification of root canal morphology and dentin thickness of mandibular incisors


Department of Restorative Dentistry, Araraquara Dental School, São Paulo State University, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission11-Sep-2016
Date of Decision10-Oct-2017
Date of Acceptance27-Nov-2017
Date of Web Publication19-Feb-2018
 

   Abstract 

Context: Root canal anatomy is evaluated using different methodologies.
Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate and classify root canal morphology and dentin thicknesses (DT), comparing radiographic and micro-computed tomography (CT) analysis.
Materials and Methods: Canal diameter and DT of mandibular incisors (n = 520) were evaluated using digital radiographs in buccolingual (BL) and mesiodistal (MD) directions. The diameter ratio (DR) BL/MD was classified: flattened (FL, DR >4); oval (OV, 2≤ DR ≥4); rounded (RN, 1.1< DR >2); round (RO, 0.9≤ DR ≥1.1); and with BL flatness (BL, DR <0.9). OV (n = 110) were subjected to micro-CT. DT and DR were evaluated at 3, 6, and 9 mm. ANOVA, Tukey, and paired Wilcoxon tests (P < 0.05) were used.
Results: Radiographic classification was 23.3% FL, 41.3% OV, 27.3% RN, 4.5% RO, and 3.6% BL. DT was similar. Radiographic DT at 3 and 9 mm was greater than micro-CT (P < 0.05) and was similar at 6 mm (P > 0.05). DR differed between the analyses. Oval canals were predominant at all levels radiographically and at 9 and 6 mm in micro-CT analysis, with greater variation at 3 mm.
Conclusion: Oval root canals are predominant in mandibular incisors at 9 mm. Radiographic DT is larger than observed in micro-CT at 3 and 9 mm, and the classification differed in each root level. The classification at 9 mm is indicated.

Keywords: Endodontics; radiography; root canal anatomy; X-ray microtomography

How to cite this article:
Espir CG, Nascimento CA, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Bonetti-Filho I, Tanomaru-Filho M. Radiographic and micro-computed tomography classification of root canal morphology and dentin thickness of mandibular incisors. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:57-62

How to cite this URL:
Espir CG, Nascimento CA, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Bonetti-Filho I, Tanomaru-Filho M. Radiographic and micro-computed tomography classification of root canal morphology and dentin thickness of mandibular incisors. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2018 [cited 2021 Oct 27];21:57-62. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2018/21/1/57/225743

   Introduction Top


Root canal morphology is evaluated using different methodologies, such as staining and clearing techniques, radiographic, cone-beam computed tomography (CT),[1] or microtomographic analysis.[2],[3],[4] Mandibular incisors are commonly used for different analysis, especially considering the number of main and accessory canals.[5] Mandibular incisors are also widely used in endodontic studies because they have flattened and oval canals. The cross-section morphology of the root canal is classified according to the radiographic measurement of the mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) diameter ratio (DR):[6],[7] round (similar DR), oval (DR two times larger), long oval (DR up to 4 times larger), flattened (DR 4 or more), and irregulars (undefined values).[7] It has been defined based on different root levels [7] or sections at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 mm from the apex (DR ≥2).[6]

Mandibular incisors commonly have a single canal [8] and high prevalence of oval root canal [2],[3] been extensively used to the evaluation of root canal cleaning and preparation using different instruments.[9],[10] Microtomographic analysis has also been widely used to evaluate this morphology, such as root canal preparation, root canal filling, and retreatment protocols.[11],[12]

Dentin thickness (DT) of root walls at the different levels is important to the planning of root canal preparation maintaining the root strength.[13] Roots with a MD dimension smaller than the BL are more susceptible to fracture, as observed in maxillary premolars, mesial roots of mandibular molars, and mandibular incisors.[14] Moreover, planning for intracanal posts [15] depends on evaluating the remaining DT.[16] This thickness may be evaluated radiographically,[6] with possible occurrence of distortions due to superimposition of root wall structures. Evaluation using microtomographic analysis obtains precise measurements of this thickness.[2],[17]

Considering the importance of root canal morphology and DT of root walls for research protocols and clinical procedures, the aims of this study are to evaluate and classify the root canal shape and dentin wall thicknesses of mandibular incisors and compare radiographic and micro-CT analyses.


   Materials and Methods Top


Five hundred and twenty mandibular incisors approved by the Ethics Committee (#699.061) were radiographed (Kodak RVG 6100 Atlanta, GA, USA) in the BL and MD directions to select teeth with single canal, absence of endodontic treatment, and without extensive restorations.

Radiographic analysis

The images obtained were analyzed by CTAn (V1.11.8; SkyScan, Belgium) software, measuring the root canal diameter in the buccal-lingual (BL) and mesiodistal (MD) direction (n = 520). These measurements were made at 9 mm from the apex (middle third) to classify the root canal shape. Using the BL/MD diameter ratio (DR), different classifications were obtained: flattened canals (FL, DR >4); and oval canals (OV, 2≤ DR ≥4) according to Jou et al.,[7]; and an additional classification, with rounded canals (RN, 1.1< DR >2); round (RO, 0.9≤ DR ≥1.1), and with flattening BL (BL, DR <0.9) [Figure 1]a.
Figure 1: (a) Buccolingual and mesiodistal radiographic images (I). Analysis of mesiodistal and buccolingual diameter (D) of root canal at 9 mm from the apex (II). Classification according to the observed diameter ratio buccolingual/mesiodistal (III). (b) Radiographic images (I) used to analysis the dentin thickness of mesial (M) and distal (D) (II) dentin walls and e buccal (B) and lingual (L) (III) at 3 and at 9 mm from the apex

Click here to view


Microtomographic and radiographic analysis

At this stage, a hundred and ten mandibular incisors radiographically classified as oval were subjected to microtomographic scannings using the micro-CT scanner (SkyScan 1176, Bruker-microCT, Kontich, Belgium). The scanning parameters were based on a pilot study and were performed at 70 kV, 353 mA and 360° rotation, and a 0.5° rotation step, resulting in an image with a 17.42-μm voxel size, filter made of aluminum, and duration time of 23 min 14 s.

Thereafter, the images were reconstructed using NRecon (V1.6.4,7; SkyScan, Belgium) software. The adjustment of reconstruction parameters was made to suppress noises. Fine-tuning function enabled set artifact correction values, such as Gaussian filter, beam hardening correction, postalignment, and ring artifact correction.

The resulting images were processed in Data Viewer (V1.5.1.2; SkyScan, Belgium) software, to obtain sagittal sections and were analyzed with CTAn (V1.11.8; SkyScan, Belgium) [Figure 2]a. The BL/MD DR and DT of mesial and distal walls of the samples were measured at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex [Figure 2]b, as previously described. These 110 samples were also evaluated radiographically again, with the DR and DT being measured at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex.
Figure 2: (a) Diameter mesiodistal (a1, a3, a5) and buccolingual (a2, a4, a6) evaluated in radiographic images (red lines). Diameter ratio (b1, b2, b3) observed (blue lines) in micro CT images at 3 (I), 6 (II) e 9 (III) mm from the apex. (b) Images obtained using CTAn software and measurements of dentin thickness (white lines) of mesial (M) e distal (D) dentin walls at 3 (IV), 6 (V), and 9 (VI) mm from the apex. Different letters in each column indicate statistically significant differences (P < 0.05)

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

The data obtained were submitted to the ANOVA and Tukey tests and Wilcoxon paired correlation test, at a 5% level of significance.


   Results Top


Radiographic analysis

The 520 mandibular incisors evaluated at 9 mm from the apex were classified: 121 (23.3%) flattened; 215 (41.3%) oval; 142 (27.3%) rounded; 23 (4.5%) round; and 19 (3.6%) with BL flatness. As regards the dentin wall measurements, the thicknesses at 3 and 9 mm from the apex were similar between the different classifications, except for the buccal wall that was greater for flattened canals compared with those considered rounded, both at 3 and at 9 mm [Table 1].
Table 1: Radiographic evaluation of diameter ration (DR) of mandibular incisors (n=520) with single canal

Click here to view


Microtomographic and radiographic analysis

A hundred and ten samples radiographically considered oval were evaluated. A comparison between the values obtained radiographically and by micro-CT analysis was performed. The radiographic DT was greater than that obtained by micro-CT for the mesial and distal walls at 3 and 9 mm (P< 0.05) and was similar at 6 mm (P > 0.05) [Table 2].
Table 2: Analyses of the dentin thickness and canal diameters using radiographic and microtomographic measurements

Click here to view


With regard to root canal diameters obtained in measurements at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex, all the radiographic and micro-CT analyses presented statistically significant difference for BL and MD diameter values (P< 0.05), with exception of the BL diameter at 3 mm, that showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) [Table 2].

Based on the values for the DR at the 3 root levels, the authors reclassified the samples considered oval by the radiographic examination at 9-mm level. Therefore, using micro-CT at 9-mm level, the classification was: 94 (85.4%) oval; 14 (12.7%) flattened; and 2 (1.8%) rounded. By the micro-CT analysis at 6 mm: 58 (52.7%) were oval; 9 (8.1%) flattened; 28 (25.4%) rounded; 11 (10%) round; and 4 (3.6%) with BL flatness. At 3 mm, 35 (31.8%) were considered oval; 1 (0.9%) flattened; 48 (43.6%) rounded; 17 (15.4%) round; and 9 (8.1%) with BL flatness. Radiographically at 9 mm, the 110 samples were classified as oval. However, at 6 mm, 69 (62.7%) were considered oval; 27 (24.5%) flattened; 12 (10.9%) rounded; and 2 (1.8%) round, and at 3 mm, 62 (56.3%) were considered oval; 8 (7.27%) flattened; 25 (22.7%) rounded; 13 (11.8%) round; and 2 (1.8%) with BL flatness [Table 3].
Table 3: Reclassification of diameter ratio (DR) in oval canals using radiographic and microtomographic measurements

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


In the present study, high variability of the DR BL/MD was observed using radiographic measurements at 9 mm from the apex. This DR showed values ranging from 0.9 to values higher than 4. The root canal morphology is classified by means of various criteria, and it is normally considered oval when the DR values are over 2.[9] Therefore, considering this variability and the need for standardizing the planning of different studies in endodontics, it was considered: flattened (FL, DR >4) and oval (OV, 2≤ DR ≥4) canals, as previously described,[7] as well as an additional classification: rounded (RN, 1.1< DR >2), round (RO, 0.9≤ DR ≥1.1), and BL flatness (BL, DR <0.9).

The root level used to determine the classification of cross-section morphology of the root canal is variable and frequently not specifically described.[14],[18],[19] The authors observed high variability in the values for DR used in teeth selection,[12],[20] as well as divergence between the classification of oval or flattened canals.[10],[13] This study used specific values to determine the points of measurement for the analysis (3, 6, and 9 mm) to achieve more standardized definition for the different types of studies. Cross-section morphology of the root canal considered oval after radiographic classification at 9 mm from the apex presented other classifications at 3 and 6 mm from the apex, corroborating with previous studies.[17] Moreover, radiographic and microtomographic analyses showed no correlation, demonstrating different classifications between them. Many studies make this measurement in the apical third [4],[13] since an oval morphology is commonly found at 3 mm from the apex. However, at this distance, the authors found higher percentages of samples considered rounded (43.6%) in micro-CT, corroborating with previous study.[2] At 9 mm, a higher correlation to the DR was obtained, with lower variability and a higher prevalence of oval morphology at this point [Table 3]. This higher prevalence of oval classification for mandibular incisors was also reported, varying from 76.2% at 3 mm;[2] 56% at 5 mm;[6] or even 88% from 3 to 5 mm.[11]

In the present study, the MD canal diameter at 3 mm was 0.22 mm, corroborating with previous study a constant MD distance in the 3 mm apical measurements, with values between 0.20 and 0.25 mm.[2] In the remaining levels of measurement (6 and 9 mm), the MD and BL diameters showed values increasing progressively in the coronal direction [Table 2]. These variations in diameter significantly interfere in the BL/MD DRs of root canals, influencing the distribution of classifications [Table 3].

The mesial and distal DT showed values between 0.9 and 1.0 at 6 mm level, without difference between the radiographic and microtomographic analyses. However, the measurements at 3 and 9 mm showed values between 0.71 and 1.26, with difference between them [Table 2]. The analyses using micro-CT show values closer to real [21] since they eliminate the superimposition of structures. Moreover, it is possible to observe the flattening dentin wall, especially evaluating the sagittal section [Figure 2]. In spite of being a simpler method, radiographic evaluation may show a larger thickness than that obtained by micro-CT, due to this superimposition of structures and distortions of the image. No flattened areas (apical or middle third) were shown in the radiographs, and this may influence planning of apical instrumentation or preparation for intracanal posts. Although radiographic is clinically the most widely used method, microtomography is suggested as a tool for the selection of samples to be used in different studies, especially when specific morphologies are selected, standardizing results with high clinical relevance. A poorer image detail was observed, for example, to cone-beam CT in comparison to micro-CT, with difference when used in the different root thirds.[17]

The root wall morphology and structure has a direct influence on planning of root canal preparation [13] and intracanal posts.[15] An incorrect planning may favor microcracks or diminish the strength of the root. Smaller DT may increase susceptibility root fracture.[22] Although fractures predominantly occur in the BL direction,[23] a considerable number of fractures in the MD direction were observed,[24] with different types of cracks and DT values (DT ≤0.3 or DT ≥0.3). Therefore, the proximal DT observed [values ≥0.3 – as demonstrated in [Table 2] may be used for planning studies about the influence of it on apical instrumentation of the root canal or the use of intracanal posts.


   Conclusion Top


Oval root canals are predominant in mandibular incisors with a single canal, after radiographic and micro-CT analysis at 9 mm from the apex. In radiographic analysis, DT is similar between the different classifications (i.e., oval, round, and flattened). However, when comparing the radiographic and micro-CT analysis of oval canals, the radiographic mesial and distal thickness is greater at 3 and 9 mm, and the DR values vary according to the root level. The classification at 9 mm from the apex showed greater proximity between the analyses and must be indicated for root canal classification.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Lin Z, Hu Q, Wang T, Ge J, Liu S, Zhu M, et al. Use of CBCT to investigate the root canal morphology of mandibular incisors. Surg Radiol Anat 2014;36:877-82.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Milanezi de Almeida M, Bernardineli N, Ordinola-Zapata R, Villas-Bôas MH, Amoroso-Silva PA, Brandão CG, et al. Micro-computed tomography analysis of the root canal anatomy and prevalence of oval canals in mandibular incisors. J Endod 2013;39:1529-33.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Leoni GB, Versiani MA, Pécora JD, Damião de Sousa-Neto M. Micro-computed tomographic analysis of the root canal morphology of mandibular incisors. J Endod 2014;40:710-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Freire LG, Gavini G, Cunha RS, Santos Md. Assessing apical transportation in curved canals: Comparison between cross-sections and micro-computed tomography. Braz Oral Res 2012;26:222-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the mandibular anterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1974;89:369-71.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Wu MK, R'oris A, Barkis D, Wesselink PR. Prevalence and extent of long oval canals in the apical third. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:739-43.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Jou YT, Karabucak B, Levin J, Liu D. Endodontic working width: Current concepts and techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48:323-35.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Boruah LC, Bhuyan AC. Morphologic characteristics of root canal of mandibular incisors in North-East Indian population: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:346-50.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
9.
Siqueira JF Jr., Alves FR, Almeida BM, de Oliveira JC, Rôças IN. Ability of chemomechanical preparation with either rotary instruments or self-adjusting file to disinfect oval-shaped root canals. J Endod 2010;36:1860-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
de Melo Ribeiro MV, Silva-Sousa YT, Versiani MA, Lamira A, Steier L, Pécora JD, et al. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of self-adjusting file and rotary systems in the apical third of oval-shaped canals. J Endod 2013;39:398-401.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Paes da Silva Ramos Fernandes LM, Rice D, Ordinola-Zapata R, Alvares Capelozza AL, Bramante CM, Jaramillo D, et al. Detection of various anatomic patterns of root canals in mandibular incisors using digital periapical radiography, 3 cone-beam computed tomographic scanners, and micro-computed tomographic imaging. J Endod 2014;40:42-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Crozeta BM, Silva-Sousa YT, Leoni GB, Mazzi-Chaves JF, Fantinato T, Baratto-Filho F, et al. Micro-computed tomography study of filling material removal from oval-shaped canals by using rotary, reciprocating, and adaptive motion systems. J Endod 2016;42:793-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Abou El Nasr HM, Abd El Kader KG. Dentinal damage and fracture resistance of oval roots prepared with single-file systems using different kinematics. J Endod 2014;40:849-51.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.
Rivera ER, Walton RE. Longitudinal tooth fractures: Findings that contribute to complex endodontic diagnoses. Endod Top 2009;16:82-111.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth. Post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:611-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.
Alomari QD, Barrieshi KM, Al-Awadhi SA. Effect of post length and diameter on remaining dentine thickness in maxillary central and lateral incisors. Int Endod J 2011;44:956-66.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.
Marca C, Dummer PM, Bryant S, Vier-Pelisser FV, Só MV, Fontanella V, et al. Three-rooted premolar analyzed by high-resolution and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1535-40.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Arruda MP, Carvalho Junior JR, Miranda CE, Paschoalato C, Silva SR. Cleaning of flattened root canals with different irrigating solutions and nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation. Braz Dent J 2009;20:284-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]    
19.
Versiani MA, Pécora JD, Sousa-Neto MD. Microcomputed tomography analysis of the root canal morphology of single-rooted mandibular canines. Int Endod J 2013;46:800-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rechenberg DK, Paqué F. Impact of cross-sectional root canal shape on filled canal volume and remaining root filling material after retreatment. Int Endod J 2013;46:547-55.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Balto K, Müller R, Carrington DC, Dobeck J, Stashenko P. Quantification of periapical bone destruction in mice by micro-computed tomography. J Dent Res 2000;79:35-40.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Wilcox LR, Roskelley C, Sutton T. The relationship of root canal enlargement to finger-spreader induced vertical root fracture. J Endod 1997;23:533-4.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.
Bellucci C, Perrini N. A study on the thickness of radicular dentine and cementum in anterior and premolar teeth. Int Endod J 2002;35:594-606.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.
Sathorn C, Palamara JE, Palamara D, Messer HH. Effect of root canal size and external root surface morphology on fracture susceptibility and pattern: A finite element analysis. J Endod 2005;31:288-92.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Prof. Mário Tanomaru-Filho
Rua Humaitá, 1680, Caixa Postal 331, Centro, 14801-903 Araraquara, SP
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_230_16

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1093    
    Printed31    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded128    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal