ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2020
Position of Orifice of Distobuccal Canal of Maxillary Second Molars Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the position of distobuccal canal orifice of maxillary second molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 301 CBCT scans of patients were retrieved from the archives of a radiology clinic, and the distance between the orifices of distobuccal and mesiobuccal root canals, the distance between the orifices of distobuccal and palatal root canals and the angle between the orifices of mesiobuccal, distobuccal and palatal root canals in the axial plane were measured on CBCT scans.
resultsOf 301 maxillary second molars evaluated in this study, 202 (67.1%) had three canals and 99 (32.9%) had four canals. The distance between the distobuccal and mesiobuccal canal orifices (DM) ranged from 1.10 to 4.40 mm (mean: 2.1831±0.6370 mm). The distance between the distobuccal and palatal canal orifices (DP) ranged from 1.20 to 6.20 mm (mean: 3.8704±0.84944 mm). The mean angle between the mesiobuccal, distobuccal and palatal orifices (MDP) was 106.37±12.12075°.
conclusionAround one-third of maxillary second molars had four canals; the rest had three canals. No maxillary second molar with two canals was found. The orifice of distobuccal canal was located at 2 mm distance from the mesiobuccal canal orifice in distopalatal direction in the majority of cases. It had 3 to 4 mm distance from the palatal canal orifice in most cases. CBCT is recommended to find the orifice of distobuccal canal in cases in whom negotiation of this canal is challenging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.