Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/260375919
Article in European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. Official Journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · February 2014
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-014-0117-0 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
46 3,665
7 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Identification of molecular targets and development of therapeutical strategies to treat apical periodontitis View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Versiani on 06 March 2014.
M. A. Versiani • L. A. B. da Silva •
R. A. B. da Silva • A. Consolaro
123
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent
one canal per root. In primary molars, the complexity of were selected. For each group of teeth, ten first and ten
this system may increase over time due to the formation of second primary molars were evaluated. The inclusion cri-
secondary dentine and narrowing of the canal system and teria comprised only molars with no physiological root
eventually the resorption process (Hibbard and Ireland resorption or at its initial stages, i.e. in which resorption did
1957). not exceed 1/3 of root length.
Traditionally, root canal anatomy of primary teeth has
been described in case reports (Badger 1982; Falk and Micro-CT scanning and reconstruction
Bowers 1983; Caceda et al. 1994; Winkler and Ahmad
1997; Kavanagh and O’Sullivan 1998; Eden et al. 2002) Each tooth was slightly dried, mounted on a custom
and in ex vivo studies using injection of materials (Simp- attachment, and scanned in a micro-CT scanner (SkyScan
son 1973), dye perfusion (Ringelstein and Seow 1989), 1174v2; Bruker-microCT, Kontich, Belgium) at an isotro-
digital radiographs, longitudinal and transverse cross-sec- pic resolution of 16.7 lm. The X-ray tube was operated at
tioning, histology (Poornima 2008), clearing technique 50 kV and 800 mA, and the scanning was performed by
(Bagherian et al. 2010), scanning electron microscope 180° rotation around the vertical axis with a rotation step of
(Wrbas et al. 1997), and conventional computed tomogra- 1°, using a 0.5-mm-thick aluminium filter. Images of each
phy (Zoremchhingi et al. 2005). These methodologies have specimen were reconstructed with dedicated software
been successfully used for many years in the anatomical (NRecon v.1.6.6; Bruker-microCT) providing axial cross
study of the root canal system; however, most of them are sections of the inner structure of the samples.
invasive or only provide a two-dimensional image of a
three-dimensional structure, and therefore may not accu- Quantitative analysis
rately reflect the morphology of the object being studied.
Thus, these inherent methodological limitations encour- DataViewer v.1.4.4 software (Bruker-microCT) was used
aged the search for new methods able to produce improved to evaluate the length (in millimetres) of the root from the
results (Peters et al. 2000). apex, and the length of the main root canals from the apical
In recent years, significant technological advances for foramen to the level of the cementoenamel junction. Three-
imaging teeth have been introduced. Their non-invasive dimensional evaluation of the root canals (volume, surface
nature allows the use of teeth for other purposes or as area, and structure model index) was performed from the
controls for further treatment procedures. The development apex to the canal orifice using CTAn v.1.12 software
of the high-resolution X-ray micro-computed tomography (Bruker-microCT). Volume was calculated as that of bi-
(micro-CT) has gained increasing significance in the study narised objects within the volume of interest. For the
of dental tissues. Micro-CT offers a non-invasive repro- measurement of the surface area of the 3D multilayer
ducible technique for three-dimensional assessment of the dataset, two components to surface measured in 2D were
root canal system and it can be applied both quantitatively used: first, the perimeters of the binarised objects on each
and qualitatively (Peters et al. 2000; Siqueira et al. 2010; cross-sectional level, and second, the vertical surfaces
Versiani et al. 2011, 2012, 2013). exposed by pixel differences between adjacent cross sec-
Even though there has been a growing body of research and tions. Structure model index (SMI) involves a measure-
publications on the dental anatomy of primary teeth (Goodacre ment of surface convexity in a 3D structure. SMI is derived
2003; Cleghorn et al. 2012), a detailed quantitative description as 6.(S’.V)/S2), where S is the object surface area before
of the anatomy of their root canal system is still lacking. dilation and S’ is the change in surface area caused by
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the mor- dilation. V is the initial, undilated object volume. An ideal
phometric aspects of the external and internal anatomy of plate, cylinder and sphere have SMI values of 0, 3 and 4,
primary mandibular and maxillary molars, using high-resolu- respectively (Peters et al. 2000).
tion three-dimensional micro-CT analysis. The smallest thickness of dentine in the internal and
external aspects of the roots, at 1, 2 and 3 mm from the
apical resorption bevel, were also recorded. Measurements
Materials and methods of the dentine thickness were taken from the external limit
of the root canal to the surface of the root. At these same
Sample selection levels, CTAn v.1.12 software (Bruker-microCT) was used
for the two-dimensional evaluation (area, roundness,
After approval from the local ethics in research committee major diameter, and minor diameter) of the root canal.
(CAAE #0072.0.130.000-09), primary mandibular (n = 20) Area was calculated using the Pratt algorithm (Pratt
and maxillary (n = 20) molars, extracted for reasons not 1991). The cross-sectional appearance, round or more
related to this study and stored in 0.1 % thymol solution, ribbon shaped, was expressed as roundness. Roundness of
123
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent
Table 1 Mean (±SD) of the morphometric 3D data in each root of primary maxillary and mandibular molars
n Root canal Root length (mm) Canal length (mm) Volume (mm3) Surface area (mm2) SMI
Mandibular
First molar 10 M 7.3 ± 1.5 6.1 ± 1.5 5.4 ± 3.6 36.1 ± 12.7a 2.0 ± 0.4
a a
D 6.4 ± 1.9 4.7 ± 2.5 4.6 ± 4.4 28.0 ± 15.6b 1.9 ± 0.4
a
Second molar 10 M 8.5 ± 1.1 7.0 ± 1.8 6.6 ± 2.7 58.7 ± 20.3 1.7 ± 0.5
D 8.9 – 2.0b 6.7 – 2.3 9.6 ± 3.5b 65.9 ± 18.3b 1.6 ± 0.3
Maxillary
First molar 10 MB 7.9 – 1.1 6.5 – 2.3 2.8 ± 2.1 24.5 ± 7.9 2.1 ± 0.6
DB 6.7 ± 1.7 5.4 ± 1.5 1.3 ± 1.6 11.4 ± 6.9a 2.1 ± 0.5
P 5.9 ± 1.8 4.6 ± 1.9 2.9 ± 2.5a 17.9 ± 7.5a 2.7 ± 0.3
Second molar 10 MB 8.5 ± 1.4 6.3 ± 1.9 3.2 ± 1.6 31.0 ± 12.0 1.8 ± 0.6
DB 6.5 ± 1.6 5.7 ± 1.4 2.0 ± 1.0 22.2 ± 11.5b 2.0 ± 0.5
P 7.4 ± 1.4 5.9 ± 1.8 5.4 ± 2.6b 31.8 ± 11.6b 2.5 ± 0.4
Different superscript letters in the same column indicate statistical significant difference between root canals in the same group of teeth
(independent sample t test, p \ 0.05); within root, values with bold letters in the same line were statistically different (paired-sample t test,
p \ 0.05)
M mesial; D distal; MB mesio-buccal; DB disto-buccal; P palatal
123
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent
Table 2 Mean (±SD) of Root n Distance Area Roundness Major diameter Minor diameter
morphometric 2D data at 1, 2 canal (mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm)
and 3 mm from the apical
resorption bevel in each root of Mandibular
primary mandibular and
First molar M 10 1 0.4 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 1.0 0.4 ± 0.3
maxillary molars
2 0.4 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.9 0.4 ± 0.2
3 0.5 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.9 0.4 ± 0.3
D 10 1 0.5 ± 0.4 0.3 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.2
2 0.6 ± 0.4 0.3 ± 0.1 1.5 ± 0.4 0.5 ± 0.2
3 0.7 ± 0.4 0.4 ± 0.1 1.4 ± 0.6 0.6 ± 0.3
Second molar M 10 1 0.4 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 1.6 0.3 ± 0.2
2 0.2 ± 0.4 0.4 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 1.0 0.3 ± 0.1
3 0.5 ± 0.9 0.3 ± 0.2 1.4 ± 1.1 0.4 ± 0.2
D 10 1 0.4 ± 0.5 0.2 ± 0.2 1.8 ± 1.4 0.3 ± 0.1
2 0.7 ± 0.7 0.2 ± 0.2 2.1 ± 1.5 0.4 ± 0.2
3 1.2 ± 1.0 0.2 ± 0.2 2.7 ± 1.4 0.5 ± 0.2
Maxillary
First molar MB 10 1 0.1 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.2
2 0.2 ± 0.2 0.3 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 0.6 0.3 ± 0.2
3 0.3 ± 0.2 0.3 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.2
DB 10 1 0.1 ± 0.3 0.5 ± 0.2 0.5 ± 0.3 0.2 ± 0.2
2 0.2 ± 0.3 0.5 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.2
3 0.2 ± 0.3 0.4 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.2
P 10 1 0.4 ± 0.5 0.6 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.4 0.5 ± 0.3
2 0.6 ± 0.5 0.6 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 0.4 0.7 ± 0.4
3 0.9 ± 0.7 0.5 ± 0.1 1.3 ± 0.5 0.8 ± 0.4
Second molar MB 10 1 0.3 ± 0.2 0.3 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.9 0.3 ± 0.1
2 0.4 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.1 1.4 ± 0.9 0.4 ± 0.1
3 0.4 ± 0.3 0.2 ± 0.1 1.6 ± 1.0 0.4 ± 0.2
Asterisk (*) means statistically DB 10 1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.2 0.9 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.1
significant difference within
2 0.3 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.6 0.3 ± 0.1
root in the same group of teeth
(one-way ANOVA post hoc 3 0.4 ± 0.2 0.3 ± 0.2 1.6 ± 0.9 0.4 ± 0.1
Tukey test, p \ 0.05) P 10 1 0.7 ± 0.2 0.5 ± 0.1 1.3 ± 0.3 0.6 ± 0.1*
M mesial; D distal; MB mesio- 2 0.9 ± 0.4 0.5 ± 0.1 1.5 ± 0.4 0.7 ± 0.1
buccal; DB disto-buccal; 3 1.1 ± 0.4 0.5 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.5 0.8 ± 0.1*
P palatal
exposure were observed in 20 % of the sample. Early root of the mandibular first molars showed two orifices in
apical root resorption was observed in only one specimen eight samples, whilst all other roots presented only one
from each group of teeth. On the other hand, surface orifice. Ribbon-shaped canal systems with one or two
resorption at the internal aspect of the roots was observed canals in the mesial root and one in the distal root were
in most of the teeth (n = 15). Bevelled resorption in the present in 40 and 30 % of the first and second molars,
apex of both roots resulted in a thinner thickness of the respectively. In the latter, a ribbon-shaped canal that sep-
dentine walls compared to the middle and cervical thirds. arates into two or more canals from below the cemento-
Three-dimensional models of the mandibular molars con- enamel junction was also observed.
firm that the configuration of the root canal system was Figure 2 shows exemplary 3D models of the external
consistent with the external morphology of the root (Fig. 2a) and internal anatomy (Fig. 2b–c) of three primary
(Fig. 1a–c). A single root canal was observed in 10 % of maxillary molars. Generally, three canal systems were
the mesial roots, while a single distal canal system was present, one in each root. Two canals were observed in the
detected in 60 and 50 % of the first and second molars, mesio-buccal (MB) root of two maxillary first molars. At
respectively. In the mesial and distal roots, the maximum the furcation level, the MB root of the maxillary first
number of orifices observed in the root canal cross sections molars showed two orifices in two samples, whilst all other
was 8 and 5, respectively. At the furcation level, the mesial roots presented only one orifice. The analysis of the
123
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent
Table 3 Mean (±SD) of dentine thickness (in mm) at 1, 2 and 3 mm Surface resorption at the internal aspect of the roots was
from the apical resorption bevel in each root of primary mandibular observed in most of the specimens (n = 17).
and maxillary molars
Exemplary cross sections of the roots of the mandibular
Root n Distance Thickness Thickness and maxillary primary molars showed the complexity and
canal (mm) (internal) (external) the large dimensions of the root canal system in the apical
Mandibular third (Fig. 3). In the mandibular molars, mesial canal cross
First molar M 10 1 0.4 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 sections were significantly flatter and irregularly tapered in
2 0.5 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.2 the mesio-distal plane. The presence of thin isthmuses,
3 0.5 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.2 interconnecting branches, and multiples orifices were
D 10 1 0.4 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.3
observed. Round-shaped canals were observed when the
2 0.5 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.3
main canal split into multiple canals throughout the root,
which occurred in 60 and 70 % of the first and second
3 0.4 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.3
molars, respectively. In the maxillary molars, evaluation of
Second molar M 10 1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1*
the cross sections of the roots showed generally ribbon- or
2 0.6 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1
oval-shaped canals with large dimensions. However, in
3 0.6 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1*
both mandibular and maxillary molars, the cross-sectional
D 10 1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.2
appearance of the canals varied in different levels of the
2 0.6 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.2
root. Table 4 summarises the percentage frequency of root
3 0.6 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.3
canal shape in each root of the primary maxillary and
Maxillary
mandibular molars.
First molar MB 10 1 0.3 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.3
2 0.4 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.3
3 0.5 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.3
Discussion
DB 10 1 0.4 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.2*
2 0.6 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.2 Although detailed descriptions of the external and internal
3 0.6 ± 0.3 0.9 ± 0.2* anatomical configuration of primary molars have been
P 10 1 0.8 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 0.2 already reported using conventional methodologies (Hib-
2 1.1 ± 0.3 1.1 ± 0.2 bard and Ireland 1957; Simpson 1973; Badger 1982; Falk
3 1.2 ± 0.4 1.2 ± 0.3 and Bowers 1983; Ringelstein and Seow 1989; Salama
Second molar MB 10 1 0.4 ± 0.1* 0.6 ± 0.1 et al. 1992; Caceda et al. 1994; Winkler and Ahmad 1997;
2 0.5 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.2 Wrbas et al. 1997; Kavanagh and O’Sullivan 1998; Fuks
3 0.6 ± 0.1* 0.8 ± 0.2 2000; Eden et al. 2002; Goodacre 2003; Zoremchhingi
DB 10 1 0.5 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.1 et al. 2005; Aminabadi et al. 2008; Poornima and Subba
2 0.6 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.2 Reddy 2008; Song et al. 2009; Bagherian et al. 2010; Liu
3 0.7 ± 0.2 0.9 ± 0.3 et al. 2010; Cleghorn et al. 2012), no study has been
P 10 1 0.6 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 0.3 undertaken to evaluate quantitatively their root canal sys-
2 0.8 ± 0.3 1.2 ± 0.4 tem using high-resolution micro-computed tomography.
3 0.8 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.5 Primary mandibular molars have been usually described
Asterisk (*) means statistically significant difference within root in
as having two grooved and divergent roots that flare to
the same group of teeth (one-way ANOVA post hoc Tukey test, accommodate the developing permanent premolars (Hib-
p \ 0.05) bard and Ireland 1957; Zoremchhingi et al. 2005; Baghe-
M mesial; D distal; MB mesio-buccal; DB disto-buccal; P palatal rian et al. 2010). In the literature, a considerable variation
in number and shape of canal systems has been described
external anatomy showed that six specimens from each in this group of teeth (Hibbard and Ireland 1957; Salama
group of teeth had three widely separated roots, while four et al. 1992; Zoremchhingi et al. 2005; Aminabadi et al.
presented fusion between the disto-buccal (DB) and palatal 2008; Bagherian et al. 2010; Cleghorn et al. 2012). Ana-
roots. Deep caries with no pulp exposure were observed in tomical anomalies, such as additional roots, dens invagin-
30 % of the sample. Early bevelled apical root resorption atus, and taurodontism, have also been reported, mostly in
was observed in two MB roots of the second molars, and mandibular second molars (Badger 1982; Falk and Bowers
three MB and two DB roots of the first molars. The apical 1983; Winkler and Ahmad 1997; Eden et al. 2002; Zor-
resorption of the roots resulted in a thinner thickness of the emchhingi et al. 2005; Johnston and Franklin 2006; Song
dentine walls compared to the middle and cervical thirds et al. 2009; Bagherian et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2010). Overall,
and, in some cases, exposure of the root canal (Fig. 2d). it may be inferred that the external and internal anatomy of
123
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent
the primary mandibular first molar closely resembles the canals in each of the mesial and distal roots (Hibbard and
primary mandibular second molar (Goodacre 2003; Cleg- Ireland 1957; Zoremchhingi et al. 2005; Aminabadi et al.
horn et al. 2012). Most studies have found either one or two 2008; Bagherian et al. 2010). The incidence of double
123
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent
Fig. 2 Exemplary three-dimensional models of three primary mesio-buccal root and one in the disto-buccal and palatal roots. The
maxillary molars (a) showing the anatomical configuration of the presence of a bevelled resorption in the apex of the roots resulted in a
root canals in frontal (b–c) and apical (d) views. Generally, ribbon- or thinner thickness of the dentine walls and exposure of the root canal
oval-shaped canal systems were present, with one or two canals in the (arrows in d)
ribbon-shaped canal system has been reported to range explanation can be found in the analysis of the 2D
from 24 to 100 % in the mesial root, and from 22.2 to 60 % parameters, which showed the highest mean values of area,
in the distal root (Zoremchhingi et al. 2005; Aminabadi major and minor diameters in the distal canals of both
et al. 2008; Bagherian et al. 2010); however, two canals in molar types. Goodacre (2003) calculated the mean
the mesial root and one canal in the distal root comprised dimensions of primary teeth based on several studies and
the most commonly reported anatomical configuration in found that the mean lengths of the mesial and distal roots of
primary mandibular molars (Cleghorn et al. 2012). In the the first and second molars were 10.5 and 8.9 mm, and 11.4
present study, this configuration was observed in 50 and and 10.5 mm, which were higher than the present results.
40 % of the first and second mandibular molars, respec- Primary maxillary molars have been described as having
tively. The lowest length of the distal roots was not three divergent and separated roots that flare to accom-
reflected in the volume and surface area of the canal, which modate the developing permanent premolars (Hibbard and
showed higher values than the mesial canal. An Ireland 1957; Goodacre 2003; Zoremchhingi et al. 2005;
123
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent
Table 4 Percentage frequency of root canal shape in each root of the primary maxillary and mandibular molars
n Root canal Round Oval Flat-oval Ribbon Irregular
Mandibular
First molar 10 M 30 – 10 50 10
D 30 10 10 40 10
Second molar 10 M 30 – – 60 10
D 40 – 20 40 –
Maxillary
First molar 10 MB 10 10 20 50 10
DB – 50 50 – –
P 20 80 – – –
Second molar 10 MB 20 10 20 40 10
DB – 40 60 – –
P 30 70 – – –
M mesial; D distal; MB mesio-buccal; DB disto-buccal; P palatal
Bagherian et al. 2010). Overall, it may be inferred that the reported as being 77.7 % (Bagherian et al. 2010), 53.5 %
external and internal anatomy of the primary maxillary first (Zoremchhingi et al. 2005), and 29 % (Hibbard and Ireland
molar roots closely resembles the primary maxillary sec- 1957) of the sample. Some variations in the number and
ond molar roots (Hibbard and Ireland 1957; Goodacre shape of canal systems have also been described in the
2003; Cleghorn et al. 2012). Despite the fact that ana- primary maxillary molars (Hibbard and Ireland 1957;
tomical anomalies have been also reported in this group of Goodacre 2003; Zoremchhingi et al. 2005; Bagherian et al.
teeth, such as additional roots and taurodontism (Caceda 2010; Cleghorn et al. 2012). Most studies have found only
et al. 1994; Kavanagh and O’Sullivan 1998; Johnston and one root canal in each root of both molar types (Hibbard
Franklin 2006), they were not observed in this sample. The and Ireland 1957; Zoremchhingi et al. 2005; Aminabadi
incidence of fusion between palatal and DB roots was et al. 2008; Bagherian et al. 2010). However, the incidence
observed in 40 % of the teeth, while in the literature it was of a double canal system in the MB root was reported in
123
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent
6.7 % (Zoremchhingi et al. 2005), 7.4 % (Bagherian et al. methods, as it provides useful 2D and 3D information
2010), and 35 % (Hibbard and Ireland 1957) of the sample related to the root canal space without changing the ori-
and, in the DB root, in 3.7 % of the specimens (Bagherian ginal sample. Unfortunately, these morphometric analyses
et al. 2010). In the present study, a double canal system cannot be compared to others because of the lack of similar
was observed only in the MB root of two maxillary first reports in the literature to date.
molars. A previous study has found that the mean lengths Effective root canal debridement relies on accurate
of the MB, DB and palatal roots of the primary maxillary determination of the working length and adequate apical
first molar were 8.8, 8.2 and 7.8 mm, respectively, and in canal enlargement, which allow for better irrigation in the
the maxillary second molars 10.8, 9.7 and 10.8 mm, apical area, optimising root canal disinfection (Fornari
respectively (Goodacre 2003), which were higher than the et al. 2010). In the present study, major and minor diam-
present results. The lowest dimension of the palatal root in eters of the root canals in the apical third indicated that the
the maxillary first molar (5.96 mm) reflected the volume debridement at this level could be improved with instru-
and surface area of the canal, which were significantly ments up to an ISO size 100. However, considering the
lower than the palatal canal of the second molar. The shape of the root canals, the reduced thickness of the
surface area of the DB canal in the second molar showed dentine walls, and the difficulty in predicting the location
significantly higher values than in the first molar, despite of the canal terminus accurately in primary teeth (Beltrame
the similar mean length between them. An explanation can et al. 2011), using instruments of this size would definitely
be found in the analysis of the 2D parameters, which lead to stripping or perforations of the roots. Clinically, 2D
showed higher values of area, major and minor diameters data results have definite implications for shaping and
in the DB canal of the second molar. cleaning procedures, because only the minor diameter is
The SMI describes the plate- or cylinder-like geometry evident on radiographs. Thus, clinicians must be aware of
of an object. If a perfect plate is enlarged, the surface area the anatomical configuration of the canals which, combined
does not change, yielding an SMI of zero. However, if a with the presence of thin isthmuses in the apical region,
rod is expanded, the surface area increases with the volume would compromise adequate cleaning and shaping, leaving
and the SMI is normed, so that perfect rods are assigned an untouched fins on the buccal and/or lingual aspects of the
SMI score of 3 (Peters et al. 2000). In the mandibular canal.
molars, the mean SMI values varied from 1.69 to 2.06 The introduction of nickel–titanium rotary file systems
indicating that the root canal system of the mesial and has resulted in a marked progress in the mechanical prep-
distal canals, in both molars, had flat cone-shaped geom- aration of the root canal space (Hülsmann et al. 2005).
etry. In the maxillary molars, the mean SMI values of the However, shaping root canals with these systems has failed
canals in most of the specimens were higher than 2.08 in debriding flat- and oval-shaped canals, leaving untou-
indicating a conical shape geometry. The cross-sectional ched fins or recesses on the buccal and/or lingual exten-
appearance of the root canal in the apical third was eval- sions (Versiani et al. 2011, 2013). Besides, large tapered
uated using the so-called morphometric parameter of rotary files should be avoided in primary mandibular
roundness. In mandibular molars, mean roundness ranged molars considering their internal anatomical configuration.
from 0.31 to 0.49, which means that the root canal was Recently, Self-Adjusting File (SAF; ReDent-Nova, Ra’a-
more flat shaped. In the maxillary molars, the lowest range nana, Israel) cleaning–shaping–irrigation system was
of values observed in the MB root of the second molar introduced. This innovative instrument consists of a hollow
(0.26–0.33) indicated a ribbon-shaped canal and reflected and lightly abrasive nickel–titanium file composed of a
its SMI data (1.81 ± 0.61). On the other hand, DB and P metal lattice, which adapts itself to round, oval, or even
root canals, as well as MB canal of the first molar, were long-oval cross sections of root canals. During its opera-
more oval shaped considering that the roundness ranged tion, which lasts 4 min, SAF removes dentine with a back-
from 0.38 to 0.63. and-forth grinding motion by scrubbing the canal walls
The wide range of variations reported in the literature with a continuous irrigation provided by a peristaltic pump,
regarding the anatomy of the root canal system of primary i.e. it simultaneously performs the mechanical and chem-
molars, in comparison to the present results, has been ical preparation of the root canal space (Metzger et al.
mostly related to the diversity in sample origin, racial 2010). Previous reports have shown that the SAF system
factors, the relatively small number of teeth in each group, was advantageous in promoting cleaning, shaping, and
the presence of initial apical root resorption in some disinfection of oval-shaped canals in permanent teeth
specimens and, of course, to the methodological approach compared to rotary files (Siqueira et al. 2010; Versiani
(Cleghorn et al. 2012). On the other hand, the micro-CT et al. 2011, 2013; Ribeiro et al. 2013), and may be an
experimental model presented here overcomes several alternative for shaping procedures in primary molar teeth to
limitations displayed by the aforementioned conventional be evaluated in further studies.
123
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent
123