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.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: For this bibliometric analysis, an extensive search was carried out on September 25, 2023 using the Scopus database. Pertinent articles in the field were scrutinized after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were evaluated using Vosviewer and Microsoft Excel.
RESULTS: A literature search revealed the initiation of scientific publication in 2008. Significant contributions made by Saudi Arabia, India, and China concerning the number of publications were seen. Similarly, Jazan University from SA was recognized as the leading institute. The Journal of Endodontics was the leading journal, while authors JNR Martins and G Gambarini produced the highest number of papers.
CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis demonstrated that scientific publications have increased tremendously since 2008. Significant contributions have been made by developing and developed nations. The Journal of Endodontics and Jazan University have been identified as the leading journal and institute.
Aim: To analyse various pain scales commonly used to determine the effect of different pain control methods during debonding of orthodontic brackets. Study Design. A comparative cross-sectional study performed on a sample of 60 patients (n = 60) including 14 males and 46 females who were ready for debonding and who were divided into three groups, i.e., finger pressure (FP), elastomeric wafer (EW), and stress relief (SR).
Materials and Methods: A 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to record the pain intensity for each tooth. Another scale known as Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was used to evaluate the patient's general attitude towards pain perception. The armamentarium and operator were kept same for all the patients. Statistical analysis used was the Kruskal-Wallis test, used for intergroup and intragroup comparison of pain scores.
Results: Lowest total pain score was recorded in the FP group (P=0.043) on intergroup comparison, while on intragroup comparison, higher pain scores were recorded in lower anterior region (P=0.02) in all three groups. There was no significant difference between the pain scores reported by the male and female subjects.
Conclusion: FP is an effective method of pain control. And teeth in the anterior region of lower and upper arches are more sensitive to pain. In terms of cognitive-affective constructs, although the VAS has been widely used in previous studies, the PCS has been detailed to show the most reliable association with physical discomfort and emotional distress.
METHODS: This study is multicentral and was conducted in Malaysia, India, Cambodia, and Saudi Arabia; participants were recruited from four different regions to answer the online questionnaire provided via a link shared using their personal WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Twitter social media.
RESULTS: The means of vigorous, moderate, and light PA (min/day) between the active and inactive groups were significantly different (p = 0.001, 0.007, and 0.001), respectively. In comparison with pre-COVID-19, the participants reported that it became more challenging to engage in regular exercise since the onset of social distance, associated with a lack of motivation followed by "less confidence", "less enjoyment", "less support, and fewer opportunities to engage in exercise"; moreover, it was "difficult to maintain close relationships" and "hard to voice their options on contentious matters" (p = 0.001). Public health measures affected the PA and well-being of active and inactive students; this demonstrates that health promotion strategies aimed at enhancing levels of PA in inactive students may be necessary to improve students' well-being.