EC Dental Science

Research Article Volume 22 Issue 7 - 2023

Pre and Postoperative Change in Dentin Thickness of Danger Zone in Mandibular 1st and 2nd Molars: A Cross-Sectional CBCT Study

Tariq Muhammed Aqili1, Abdulmajeed Abdulaziz Baik2, Abdulbari Saleh Aljohani2 and Muhannad Mohammed Hakeem1*

1Restorative Sciences Department (Endodontic), Taibah University, Saudi Arabia
2Dental School, Taibah University, Saudi Arabia

*Corresponding Author: Muhannad Mohammed Hakeem, Assistant Professor, Restorative Sciences Department (Endodontic), Taibah University, Saudi Arabia.
Received: June 18, 2023; Published: June 28, 2023

Introduction: Adequate knowledge of the internal canal anatomy can help in a considerable reduction of endodontics procedural errors.

Objective: To investigate the dentine thickness in the distal wall of mesial canals of mandibular first and second molars at a level of 2 mm from the base of the furcation, compare endodontically treated mandibular molars with the contralateral sound molars using CBCT.

Materials and Methods: cross-sectional study, conducted by the evaluation of patients CBCT images. 87 CBCT images used to assess the dentine thickness in the distal wall of mesial canals (danger zone) at a level of 2mm from the base of the furcation. Student t-test was used to compare the difference in dentine thickness in the lower first and second molars, in root canal treated tooth and in sound tooth.

Results: The mean thickness of danger zone in MB and ML canals in root canal treated teeth was 0.78 ± 0.30 and 0.77 ± 0.28, while in sound teeth was 1.17 ± 0.25 and 1.19 ± 0.26, respectively. The mean of dentine thickness of the danger zone in both MB and ML roots was significantly reduced after RCT compared to the sound teeth in the contralateral side (P-value = .001).

Conclusion: The outcomes confirm the importance of avoiding over instrumentation to minimis the possibility of strip root perforations in thin areas. The results of this study can be utilized to enhance the decision-making process when selecting the most suitable instrument taper and size for a particular clinical scenario.

Keywords: CBCT; Danger Zone; Mesial Roots; Mandibular Molars

  1. Bellizzi R and William P Cruse. "A Historic Review of Endodontics, 1689-1963, Part 3”. Journal of Endodontics5 (1980): 576-580.
  2. Demirbuga Sezer., et al. “Use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography to Evaluate Root and Canal Morphology of Mandibular First and Second Molars in Turkish Individuals”. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal4 (2013): e737.
  3. Isom Terry L., et al. “Evaluation of Root Thickness in Curved Canals after Flaring”. Journal of Endodontics7 (1995): 368-371.
  4. Assif David and Colin Gorfil. "Biomechanical Considerations in Restoring Endodontically Treated Teeth”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry6 (1994): 565-567.
  5. Abou-Rass Marwan., et al. “The Anticurvature Filing Method to Prepare the Curved Root Canal”. Journal of the American Dental Association5 (1980): 792-794.
  6. Estrela Carlos., et al. “Root Perforations: A Review of Diagnosis, Prognosis and Materials”. Brazilian Oral Research 32 (2018).
  7. Garcia Filho Paulo Ferreira., et al. “Danger Zone in Mandibular Molars before Instrumentation: An in vitro Study”. Journal of Applied Oral Science 11 (2003): 324-326.
  8. Akhlaghi Nahid Mohammadzadeh., et al. “The Minimum Residual Root Thickness after Using Protaper, Race and Gates-Glidden Drills: A Cone Beam Computerized Tomography Study”. European Journal of Dentistry02 (2015): 228-233.
  9. Silva EJNL., et al. “Microcomputed Tomographic Evaluation of Canal Transportation and Centring Ability of Protaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive Systems”. International Endodontic Journal7 (2017): 694-699.
  10. Kessler Joel R., et al. “Comparison of the Relative Risk of Molar Root Perforations Using Various Endodontic Instrumentation Techniques”. Journal of Endodontics10 (1983): 439-447.
  11. Berutti Elio and Giuseppe Fedon. "Thickness of Cementum/Dentin in Mesial Roots of Mandibular First Molars”. Journal of Endodontics11 (1992): 545-548.
  12. Sauáia TS., et al. “Thickness of Dentine in Mesial Roots of Mandibular Molars with Different Lengths”. International Endodontic Journal7 (2010): 555-559.
  13. Tabrizizadeh M., et al. “Evaluation of Radicular Dentin Thickness of Danger Zone in Mandibular First Molars” (2010).
  14. Akhlaghi NM., et al. “Comparison of Dentine Removal Using V‐Taper and K‐Flexofile Instruments”. International Endodontic Journal11 (2010): 1029-1036.
  15. Sousa Thiago Oliveira., et al. “Diagnostic Accuracy of Periapical Radiography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Identifying Root Canal Configuration of Human Premolars”. Journal of Endodontics7 (2017): 1176-1179.
  16. Patel Shanon., et al. “Cone Beam Computed Tomography in E Ndodontics–a Review”. International Endodontic Journal1 (2015): 3-15.
  17. Neelakantan Prasanna., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Modified Canal Staining and Clearing Technique, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography, Spiral Computed Tomography, and Plain and Contrast Medium–Enhanced Digital Radiography in Studying Root Canal Morphology”. Journal of Endodontics9 (2010): 1547-1551.
  18. Von Elm Erik., et al. “The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (Strobe) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies”. Annals of Internal Medicine8 (2007): 573-577.
  19. Gani Omar A., et al. “Morphological Changes Related to Age in Mesial Root Canals of Permanent Mandibular First Molars”. Acta Odontológica Latinoamericana3 (2014): 105-109.
  20. Reis Adriana Gurgel De Araujo Reboucas., et al. “Second Canal in Mesiobuccal Root of Maxillary Molars Is Correlated with Root Third and Patient Age: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Study”. Journal of Endodontics5 (2013): 588-592.
  21. Shantiaee Yazdan., et al. “Alterations of the Danger Zone after Preparation of Curved Root Canals Using Waveone with Reverse Rotation or Reciprocation Movements”. Iranian Endodontic Journal3 (2015): 156.
  22. Usman Najia., et al. “Influence of Instrument Size on Root Canal Debridement”. Journal of Endodontics2 (2004): 110-112.
  23. Rundquist BD and A Versluis. "How Does Canal Taper Affect Root Stresses?" International Endodontic Journal3 (2006): 226-237.
  24. ElAyouti Ashraf., et al. “Increased Apical Enlargement Contributes to Excessive Dentin Removal in Curved Root Canals: A Stepwise Microcomputed Tomography Study”. Journal of Endodontics11 (2011): 1580-1584.
  25. Lertchirakarn Veera., et al. “Patterns of Vertical Root Fracture: Factors Affecting Stress Distribution in the Root Canal”. Journal of Endodontics8 (2003): 523-528.
  26. Versluis A., et al. “Changes in Compaction Stress Distributions in Roots Resulting from Canal Preparation”. International Endodontic Journal12 (2006): 931-939.
  27. Wu Min-Kai., et al. “The Risk of Furcal Perforation in Mandibular Molars Using Gates-Glidden Drills with Anticurvature Pressure”. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology3 (2005): 378-382.
  28. Lim SS and CJR Stock. "The Risk of Perforation in the Curved Canal: Anticurvature Filing Compared with the Stepback Technique”. International Endodontic Journal1 (1987): 33-39.
  29. Mahran Abeer H and Mona M AboEl-Fotouh. "Comparison of Effects of Protaper, Heroshaper, and Gates Glidden Burs on Cervical Dentin Thickness and Root Canal Volume by Using Multislice Computed Tomography”. Journal of Endodontics10 (2008): 1219-1222.
  30. Sanfelice Cintia Mussoline., et al. “Effects of Four Instruments on Coronal Pre-Enlargement by Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography”. Journal of Endodontics5 (2010): 858-861.
  31. Flores Cláudia Bohrer., et al. “Comparative Assessment of the Effects of Gates-Glidden, Largo, La-Axxess, and New Brazilian Drill Cpdrill on Coronal Pre-Enlargement: Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis”. Journal of Endodontics4 (2014): 571-574.
  32. Olivier Juan-Gonzalo., et al. “Danger Zone Analysis Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography after Apical Enlargement with K3 and K3xf in a Manikin Model”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry4 (2016): e361.
  33. Zhou Guangchao., et al. “Root Dentine Thickness of Danger Zone in Mesial Roots of Mandibular First Molars”. BMC Oral Health 20 (2020): 1-6.
  34. Bryant ST., et al. “Shaping Ability Of. 04 And. 06 Taper Profile Rotary Nickel–Titanium Instruments in Simulated Root Canals”. International Endodontic Journal3 (1999): 155-164.
  35. Keles A., et al. “Evaluation of Dentine Thickness of Middle Mesial Canals of Mandibular Molars Prepared with Rotary Instruments: A Micro‐Ct Study”. International Endodontic Journal4 (2020): 519-528.
  36. De‐Deus G., et al. “Anatomical Danger Zone Reconsidered: A Micro‐Ct Study on Dentine Thickness in Mandibular Molars”. International Endodontic Journal10 (2019): 1501-1507.
  37. Puleio Francesco., et al. “Does Low-Taper Root Canal Shaping Decrease the Risk of Root Fracture? A Systematic Review”. Dentistry Journal6 (2022): 94.

Muhannad Mohammed Hakeem., et al. "Pre and Postoperative Change in Dentin Thickness of Danger Zone in Mandibular 1st and 2nd Molars: A Cross-Sectional CBCT Study". EC Dental Science 22.7 (2023): 79-87.