Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Cone-beam Computed Tomography: Anatomic Analysis of Maxillary Posterior Teeth-Impact on Endodontic Microsurgery.
J Endod. 2016 Jun; 42(6):890-5.JE

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

It is imperative that the endodontic surgeon be knowledgeable of the anatomic dimensions of the surgical site. If cone-beam computed tomography is not available because of location/cost, it is prudent for the clinician to consult a knowledge base for the surgical site. An understanding of the root thickness of maxillary premolars and molars at the preferred level for root resection (3.0-3.6 mm), bone thickness over these roots, and the proximity of each root apex to the maxillary sinus will help the surgeon before and during the surgical procedure.

METHODS

Cone-beam computed tomography scans from 155 patients were used to evaluate measurements from 505 teeth and respective areas.

RESULTS

(1) Buccal bone was thinnest over the buccal root of the 2-rooted first premolar (0.66 mm) and the mesiobuccal (MB) root of the first molar (0.84 mm) and thickest over the MB root of the second molar (1.91 mm). (2) The palatal bone was thinnest over the palatal root of the maxillary first molar (1.24 mm) and thickest over the single-rooted second premolar (3.26 mm). (3) The longest distances to complete resection were found for the 2-rooted first and second premolars (8.81 mm and 9.14 mm, respectively) and the MB root of the second molar (7.40 mm). (4) The MB root of the second molar had the closest proximity to the sinus floor, with an average distance of 0.66 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of the maxillary posterior tooth anatomy for apical resection is beneficial to the endodontist.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Practice limited to endodontics, Morgan Hill, California.Practice limited to endodontics, Bellevue, Washington.Division of Endodontics, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Electronic address: sroach@umn.edu.Division of Endodontics, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Division of Oral Medicine and Diagnosis, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Division of Endodontics, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

27130335

Citation

Lavasani, Sanaz A., et al. "Cone-beam Computed Tomography: Anatomic Analysis of Maxillary Posterior Teeth-Impact On Endodontic Microsurgery." Journal of Endodontics, vol. 42, no. 6, 2016, pp. 890-5.
Lavasani SA, Tyler C, Roach SH, et al. Cone-beam Computed Tomography: Anatomic Analysis of Maxillary Posterior Teeth-Impact on Endodontic Microsurgery. J Endod. 2016;42(6):890-5.
Lavasani, S. A., Tyler, C., Roach, S. H., McClanahan, S. B., Ahmad, M., & Bowles, W. R. (2016). Cone-beam Computed Tomography: Anatomic Analysis of Maxillary Posterior Teeth-Impact on Endodontic Microsurgery. Journal of Endodontics, 42(6), 890-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.03.002
Lavasani SA, et al. Cone-beam Computed Tomography: Anatomic Analysis of Maxillary Posterior Teeth-Impact On Endodontic Microsurgery. J Endod. 2016;42(6):890-5. PubMed PMID: 27130335.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Cone-beam Computed Tomography: Anatomic Analysis of Maxillary Posterior Teeth-Impact on Endodontic Microsurgery. AU - Lavasani,Sanaz A, AU - Tyler,Cynthia, AU - Roach,Samantha H, AU - McClanahan,Scott B, AU - Ahmad,Mansur, AU - Bowles,Walter R, Y1 - 2016/04/27/ PY - 2015/12/29/received PY - 2016/03/03/revised PY - 2016/03/06/accepted PY - 2016/5/1/entrez PY - 2016/5/1/pubmed PY - 2017/9/25/medline KW - CBCT KW - endodontic microsurgery KW - maxillary posterior teeth SP - 890 EP - 5 JF - Journal of endodontics JO - J Endod VL - 42 IS - 6 N2 - INTRODUCTION: It is imperative that the endodontic surgeon be knowledgeable of the anatomic dimensions of the surgical site. If cone-beam computed tomography is not available because of location/cost, it is prudent for the clinician to consult a knowledge base for the surgical site. An understanding of the root thickness of maxillary premolars and molars at the preferred level for root resection (3.0-3.6 mm), bone thickness over these roots, and the proximity of each root apex to the maxillary sinus will help the surgeon before and during the surgical procedure. METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography scans from 155 patients were used to evaluate measurements from 505 teeth and respective areas. RESULTS: (1) Buccal bone was thinnest over the buccal root of the 2-rooted first premolar (0.66 mm) and the mesiobuccal (MB) root of the first molar (0.84 mm) and thickest over the MB root of the second molar (1.91 mm). (2) The palatal bone was thinnest over the palatal root of the maxillary first molar (1.24 mm) and thickest over the single-rooted second premolar (3.26 mm). (3) The longest distances to complete resection were found for the 2-rooted first and second premolars (8.81 mm and 9.14 mm, respectively) and the MB root of the second molar (7.40 mm). (4) The MB root of the second molar had the closest proximity to the sinus floor, with an average distance of 0.66 mm. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of the maxillary posterior tooth anatomy for apical resection is beneficial to the endodontist. SN - 1878-3554 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/27130335/Cone_beam_Computed_Tomography:_Anatomic_Analysis_of_Maxillary_Posterior_Teeth_Impact_on_Endodontic_Microsurgery_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0099-2399(16)30029-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -