ArticleImaging science in dentistry2024
Analysis of root number and canal morphology of maxillary premolars using cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anatomical Variations in Root Canal Configuration of Maxillary Second Premolars: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of maxillary premolar canal anatomy: Ahmed's versus Vertucci's classifications in a Jordanian cohort.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- Maxillary First Premolars' Internal Morphology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the number of roots and type of root canals in maxillary first and second premolars within a selected Korean population utilizing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Additionally, it sought to investigate potential differences in these features according to sex and tooth type. Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 585 maxillary first premolars and 578 maxillary second premolars from 303 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The number of roots was classified based on root morphology, and canal configurations were categorized into 8 types according to the Vertucci classification. For statistical analysis, chi-square or Fisher exact tests were employed to compare root number and canal morphology according to sex and tooth type. Results: CBCT analysis revealed that 71.5% of maxillary first premolars and 97.6% of maxillary second premolars had 1 root. The most common canal configuration in maxillary first premolars was Vertucci type IV (42.6%), whereas type I predominated in maxillary second premolars (76.5%). Significant differences in root number and canal configurations were found between men and women ( Conclusion: Both maxillary first premolars and maxillary second premolars typically had 1 root, with a smaller percentage possessing 2 roots. Significant sex differences were observed in root number and canal type. This study highlights the variability in root number and canal configuration, emphasizing the importance of recognizing these variations to achieve successful endodontic treatment.
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.