Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the detection rate of root canal orifices by three different methods: naked eye, with surgical loupes and under a surgical operating microscope.
Material and methods: Sixty extracted permanent maxillary molars and sixty extracted permanent mandibular molars were collected. Access cavity was prepared. After an access cavity, the long shank spoon excavator was used to remove the contents of the chamber and irrigation was done with 5% sodium hypochlorite. The existence of each orifice was recorded when a K-file #8 or #10 pushed into the orifice was able to stand by itself.
The teeth were divided into four groups (1-4). In each group the number of root canal orifices were recorded using naked eye (Gp 1), loupes (Gp 2), surgical operating microscope (Gp 3) and after tooth clearing technique (Gp 4). Tooth clearing technique gave the actual number of root canal orifices and was used as a standard for comparison.
Statistical analysis: Chi square test was used.
Result: There was significant difference between groups 1 and 3; and groups 2 and 3. Although the number of orifices detected was greater with loupes (Gp 2) than eye (Gp 1) but it was not significant.
Conclusion: The number of orifices detected increased with increasing magnification. Experience of the operator influences the detection rate of root canal orifices. The microscope could more accurately detect orifices statistically than the other two methods.
Keywords: loupes, microscope, molars, orifice
References
Hess W (1925) Anatomy of the root canals of the teeth of the permanent dentition. Part 1. New York, USA: William Wood and Co, pp. 1- 39
Skidmore AE, Bjorndal AM. Root canal morphology of the human mandibular first molar Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol.1971; 32(5):778-84.
Pineda F, Kuttler Y. Mesiodistal and buccolingual roentgenographic investiga-tion of 7,275 root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972; 33(1):101-10.
Pineda F. Roentgenographic investigation of the mesiobuccal root of the maxillary first molar. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971; 32(5):778-84.
Seidberg BH, Altman M, Guttuso J, and Suson M. Frequency of two mesiobuccal root canals in maxillary permanent first molars. J Am Dent Assoc 1973; 87: 852-856.
Pomeranz HH and Fishelberg G The secondary mesiobuccal canal of maxillary molars. J Am Dent Assoc 1974; 88: 119-124
Vertucci FJ. The significance of mesiobuccal root of the maxillary first molars. US Navy Medicine 1974; 63: 29-32.
Weller RN, Hartwell GR. The impact of improved access and searching techniques on detection of the mesiolingual canal in maxillary molars.J Endod. 1989 Feb;15(2):82-3. Khraisat A, Smadi L. Canal configuration in the mesio-buccal root of maxillary first molar teeth of a Jordanian population. Aust Endod J. 2007 Apr;33(1):13-7.
Kulild JC, Peters DD. Incidence and configuration of canal systems in the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first and second molars.J Endod. 1990 Jul;16(7):311-7
Coutinho Filho T, La Cerda RS, Gurgel Filho ED, de Deus GA, Magalhães KM. The influence of the surgical operating microscope in locating the mesiolingual canal orifice: a laboratory analysis. Braz Oral Res. 2006 Jan-Mar;20(1):59-63.
Stropko JJ. Canal morphology of maxillary molars: clinical observations of canal configurations. J Endod 1999; 25:446-50.
Ahmed HA, Abu-bakr NH, Yahia NA, Ibrahim YERoot and canal morphology of permanent mandibular molars in a Sudanese population. Int Endod J. 2007 Oct;40(10):766-71.
De Carvalho MC, Zuolo ML. Orifice locating with a microscope. J Endod. 2000 Sep;26(9):532-4.
Yoshioka T, Kobayashi C, Suda H. Detection rate of root canal orifices with a microscope. J Endod. 02 Jun;28(6):452-3.
Corresponding Author
Dr Suraj Arora
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics
JCD Dental College, Barnala Road, Sirsa, Haryana 1250555 India
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Mobile Number: 9041828632
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v3i10.17
