Objectives: The aim of this review was to compare the various root and root canal morphology classifications, their advantages, limitations, and clinical and research implications. Data Sources and Selection. An extensive literature search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus to identify the published data on root and root canal classification systems published until 1 May 2020 using keywords, root canal classification system, classification systems for root canals, and root morphology. The related literature was reviewed and then summarized. Data Synthesis. Several studies have analysed and detailed root and root canal classifications and further added new subsystems, works of Weine et al. (1969) and Vertucci et al. (1974). Besides, Sert and Bayirli (2004) added supplementary types to Vertucci's classification system. A new classification was most recently introduced by Ahmed et al. (2017) involving the use of codes for tooth numbering, number of roots, and canal configuration.
Conclusions: Weine et al. classified only single-rooted teeth, without considering multirooted teeth and complex configurations. Vertucci's classification included complex configurations, with Sert and Bayirli adding further complex supplemental types. Ahmed et al.'s classification simplifies classifying root and canal morphology while overcoming the limitations of several previous classification systems making it beneficial for implementation in dental schools.
METHODOLOGY: For the study, 80 freshly extracted human mandibular premolars with single well-developed roots without any curvatures were taken and the tooth roots were wrapped in a single layer of aluminum foil, and they were placed vertically in a plastic mold filled with self-curing acrylic resin. The access was opened, and working lengths were determined. The canals were instrumented keeping an apical size of #30 by different taper rotary files: Group 1: un-instrumented (control group), Group 2: 30/.04, Group 3: 30/.06, Group 4: 30/.08 K3XF file system, and teeth were obturated using a 3-D obturation system, and access cavities were filled using composite. Both experimental and control groups were subjected to fracture load using a conical steel tip (0.5mm) attached to a universal testing machine to record force applied in newton until root fracture.
RESULTS: Root canal instrumented groups showed lower fracture resistance than the uninstrumented group.
CONCLUSION: Hence it could be concluded that endodontic instrumentation with increased taper rotary instruments caused a decrease in fracture resistance of the teeth, and biomechanical preparation of root canal system with rotary or reciprocating instruments caused a significant decrease in fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth (ETT), thereby decreasing their prognosis and long-term survival.
AIMS: This study aims to evaluate and compare the cytotoxicity and cell attachment properties of cGIC and nano-HA-silica-GIC on dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs).
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Material extracts of nano-HA-silica-GIC and cGIC were prepared into seven serial dilutions and applied to 96 well plates seeded with DPSCs. After 72 h, the cell viability was determined using MTT assay. The DPSCs cell attachment properties were examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM) after 24 and 72 h. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyse the data for MTT assay (P < 0.05). SEM images of cell attachment properties were also described.
RESULTS: Nano-HA-silica-GIC and cGIC was shown to be slight to non-cytotoxic at all concentrations, except 200 mg/ml. Moderate cytotoxicity has been observed at 200 mg/ml concentration where nano-HA-silica-GIC and cGIC revealed cell viability values of 44.38 and 42.15%, respectively. Nano-HA-silica-GIC demonstrated better cell viability values than cGIC at all concentrations except for 6.25 and 12.5 mg/ml. Nevertheless, the results were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). SEM examination revealed the increasing numbers of DPSCs attached to both groups with prominent filopodia, especially after 72 h.
CONCLUSIONS: Nano-HA-silica-GIC exhibited good biocompatibility which is comparable to cGIC and favoured the attachment of DPSCs.