METHODS: From 500 patient CBCT scans, 787 maxillary premolar teeth were evaluated. The sample was divided by gender and age (10-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, and 61 years and older). Ahmed et al. classification system was used to record root canal morphology.
RESULTS: The most frequent classifications for right maxillary 1st premolars were 2MPM1 B1 L1 (39.03%) and 1MPM1 (2.81%), while the most frequent classifications for right maxillary 2nd premolars were 2MPM1 B1 L1 (39.08%) and 1MPM1 (17.85%). Most of the premolars typically had two roots (left maxillary first premolars: 81.5%, left maxillary second premolars: 82.7%, right maxillary first premolars: 74.4%, right maxillary second premolars: 75.7%). Left and right maxillary 1st premolars for classes 1MPM1 and 1MPM1-2-1 showed significant gender differences. For classifications 1MPM1 and 1MPM1-2-1, age-related changes were seen in the left and right maxillary first premolars.
CONCLUSION: This study provides novel insights into the root canal anatomy of maxillary premolars within the Saudi population, addressing a notable gap in the literature specific to this demographic. Through CBCT imaging and analysis of large sample sizes, the complex and diverse nature of root canal morphology in these teeth among Saudi individuals is elucidated. The findings underscore the importance of CBCT imaging in precise treatment planning and decision-making tailored to the Saudi population. Consideration of age and gender-related variations further enhances understanding and aids in personalized endodontic interventions within this demographic.
OBJECTIVE: The systematic review and meta-analysis aims to gather evidence regarding the effectiveness of EALs for WL determination when compared to different imaging techniques along with postoperative pain associated with WL determination, the number of radiographs taken during the procedure, the time taken, and the adverse effects.
METHODS: For the review, clinical studies with cross-over and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in seven electronic databases, followed by cross-referencing of the selected studies and related research synthesis. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was carried out with Cochrane's RoB tool and a random-effects model was used. The meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan software 5.4.1.
RESULTS: Eleven eligible RCTs were incorporated into the review and eight RCTs into the meta-analysis, of which five had high RoB and the remaining six had unclear RoB. Following meta-analysis, no significant difference in postoperative pain was found among the EAL and radiograph groups (SMD 0.00, CI .29 to .28, 354 participants; P value = 0.98). Radiograph group showed better WL accuracy (SMD 0.55, CI .11 to .99, 254 participants; P value = 0.02), while the EAL group had 10% better WL adequacy (RR 1.10, CI 1.03-1.18, 573 participants; P value = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: We found very low-certainty evidence to support the efficacy of different types of EAL compared to radiography for the outcomes tested. We were unable to reach any conclusions about the superiority of any type of EAL. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardizing the outcomes and outcome measurement methods.