应用锥形束CT对下颌第一磨牙近颊根管壁厚度相关影响因素的研究

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.08.016

口腔医学研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (8): 779-783.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.08.016

应用锥形束CT对下颌第一磨牙近颊根管壁厚度相关影响因素的研究

单姗¹, 张文欣¹, 葛久禹², 刘澍¹, 王铁梅^1*

1.南京大学医学院附属口腔医院,南京市口腔医院口腔颌面医学影像科江苏南京 210008;
2.南京大学医学院附属口腔医院,南京市口腔医院牙体牙髓病科江苏南京 210008

收稿日期:2022-01-11 出版日期:2022-08-28 发布日期:2022-08-24
通讯作者: *王铁梅,E-mail:tiemei106@263.net
作者简介:单姗(1995~ ),女,江苏人,硕士在读,主要从事口腔颌面影像的研究工作。
基金资助:
江苏省自然科学基金面上项目(编号:BK20150089)南京市科技发展计划人口卫生健康基金(编号:201503038)南京市科技发展计划医疗卫生与国际合作基金(编号:201405049)

Analysis of Related Factors Affecting the Thickness of Mesiobuccal Root Canal Wall of Mandibular First Molars Using CBCT

SHAN Shan¹, ZHANG Wenxin¹, GE Jiuyu², LIU Shu¹, WANG Tiemei^1*

1. Department of Oral and Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210008, China;
2. Department of Endodontics, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210008, China

Received:2022-01-11 Online:2022-08-28 Published:2022-08-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的: 应用锥形束CT探讨在体下颌第一磨牙近颊根管壁厚度的对称性,以及与年龄、性别及根分叉水平的关系。方法: 200位患者按年龄分组,测量近颊根管在不同根分叉水平下各壁厚度并分析。结果: 双侧下颌第一磨牙近颊根管壁厚度无显著差异(P>0.05),随年龄增长各壁厚度均增加,仅远中壁有显著差异(P<0.05);颊侧壁与近中壁厚度在性别上无显著差异(P>0.05),距离根分叉越远壁越薄;而远中壁在根分叉下3 mm处最薄,男性为(0.77±0.10) mm,女性为(0.76±0.07) mm,有显著差异(P<0.05)。结论: 双侧下颌第一磨牙近颊根管壁厚度具有对称性,远中危险区增龄性变化及性别差异更为明显。在根分叉下3 mm处,远中危险区厚度最薄。对于年轻的女性患者,预备近颊根管时应避免过度切削远中牙本质,以防穿孔。

关键词: 下颌第一磨牙, 根管壁厚度, 锥形束CT, 根管预备, 增龄性改变

Abstract: Objective: To find the symmetry and the association of thicknesses of mesiobuccal root canal wall of mandibular first molars with age, gender, and distance from furcation using CBCT. Methods: The wall thicknesses of the mesiobuccal canal of mandibular first molars from different furcation levels were measured and analyzed in 200 patients. Results: There were no significant differences in the mesiobuccal canal wall thicknesses between bilateral mandibular first molars (P>0.05). The wall thicknesses increased with age, and only the distal wall had statistical differences (P<0.05). The buccal and mesial wall thicknesses between male and female had no statistical differences (P>0.05), and the walls were thinner with the distance from the furcation. However, the thinnest distal wall located 3 mm below the furcation with significant differences between (0.77±0.10) mm in men and (0.76±0.07) mm in women. Conclusion: The thicknesses of the mesiobuccal root canal wall for bilateral mandibular first molars were symmetrical. The age-related and gender differences were more obvious in distal danger zone. The wall was the thinnest in the distal direction at 3mm below the furcation. This suggests that for young female patients, excessive distal dentin removing should be avoided to prevent perforation

Key words: mandibular first molar, thickness of root canal wall, cone-beam computed tomography, root canal preparation, age-related changes

单姗, 张文欣, 葛久禹, 刘澍, 王铁梅. 应用锥形束CT对下颌第一磨牙近颊根管壁厚度相关影响因素的研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(8): 779-783.

SHAN Shan, ZHANG Wenxin, GE Jiuyu, LIU Shu, WANG Tiemei. Analysis of Related Factors Affecting the Thickness of Mesiobuccal Root Canal Wall of Mandibular First Molars Using CBCT[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2022, 38(8): 779-783.

参考文献

[1] Jakovljevic A, Nikolic N, Jacimovic J, et al. Prevalence of apical periodontitis and conventional nonsurgical root canal treatment in general adult population: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies published between 2012 and 2020 [J]. J Endod, 2020, 46(10):1371-1386.
[2] Leite Pinto SS, Lins RX, Videira Marceliano-Alves MF, et al. The internal anatomy of danger zone of mandibular molars: A cone-beam computed tomography study [J]. J Conserv Dent, 2018, 21(5):481-484.
[3] Tian SY, Bai W, Jiang WR, et al. Fracture resistance of roots in mandibular premolars following root canal instrumentation of different sizes [J]. Chin J Dent Res, 2019, 22(3):197-202.
[4] 古丽比热·艾合买提,曹雅,谢思静,等.根管治疗后隐匿性牙根纵裂裂纹宽度对CBCT检出率的影响[J].口腔医学研究,2020,36(2):172-176.
[5] Zhou G, Leng D, Li M, et al. Root dentine thickness of danger zone in mesial roots of mandibular first molars [J]. BMC Oral Health, 2020, 20(1):43.
[6] Chaleefong M, Prapayasatok S, Nalampang S, et al. Comparing the pulp/tooth area ratio and dentin thickness of mandibular first molars in different age groups: A cone-beam computed tomography study [J]. J Conserv Dent, 2021, 24(2):158-162.
[7] 中华口腔医学会牙体牙髓病学专业委员会.牙体牙髓病诊疗中口腔放射学的应用指南[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2021,56(4):7.
[8] Martins JNR, Ordinola-Zapata R, Marques D, et al. Differences in root canal system configuration in human permanent teeth within different age groups [J]. Int Endod J, 2018, 51(8):931-941.
[9] Ballullaya S, Vemuri S, Kumar P. Variable permanent mandibular first molar: Review of literature [J]. J Conserv Dent, 2013, 16(2):99-110.
[10] Garcia Filho PF, Letra A, Menezes R, et al. Danger zone in mandibular molars before instrumentation: an in vitro study [J]. J Appl Oral Sci, 2003, 11(4):324-326.
[11] Kartal N, Cimilli H. The degrees and configurations of mesial canal curvatures of mandibular first molars [J]. J Endod, 1997, 23(6):358-362.
[12] 许沐馨,李乔,吴大明,等.大锥度镍钛器械与“危险区”牙周牙髓联合损害[J].口腔医学研究,2016,36(10):4.
[13] Akhlaghi NM, Bajgiran LM, Naghdi A, et al. The minimum residual root thickness after using ProTaper, RaCe and Gates-Glidden drills: A cone beam computerized tomography study [J]. Eur J Dent, 2015, 9(2):228-233.
[14] 王旭,王洁.牙髓组织的增龄性变化[J].现代口腔医学杂志,2000,14(1):58-59.
[15] De-Deus G, Rodrigues EA, Belladonna FG, et al. Anatomical danger zone reconsidered: a micro-CT study on dentine thickness in mandibular molars [J]. Int Endod J, 2019, 52(10):1501-1507.
[16] De-Deus G, Rodrigues EA, Lee JK, et al. Root groove depth and inter-orifice canal distance as anatomical predictive factors for danger zone in the mesial root of mandibular first molars [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2021, 25(6):3641-3649.

应用锥形束CT对下颌第一磨牙近颊根管壁厚度相关影响因素的研究

Analysis of Related Factors Affecting the Thickness of Mesiobuccal Root Canal Wall of Mandibular First Molars Using CBCT

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	刘煜, 张蕾, 李坤, 李颜智, 张祎, 杨怡天, 赵彬. 管电压、管电流和相邻钛种植体对锥形束CT评估根管治疗后牙根纵裂的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(6): 553-558.
[2]	吴凯鑫, 魏路明, 苏明, 袁长永, 王鹏来. 辅助配准装置用于严重伪影工况配准精度的研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(4): 330-334.
[3]	郝燕清, 唐蓉, 王金孟, 林梓桐. 2014~2019年根管治疗后移位型根折发生占比的CBCT回顾性研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2022, 38(2): 181-185.
[4]	相艳, 杨绿丽, 林垚. 闽南地区人群上颌第二磨牙融合根的CBCT研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(9): 850-854.
[5]	陈细雄, 葛久禹. 新型机用不锈钢锉Gentlefile根管成形能力的体外研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(8): 722-726.
[6]	苏雪龙, 刘飞, 贺舒阳, 郭青玉. 单支锉ProTaper Sx预备乳牙根管根尖推出物量的体外研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(5): 436-441.
[7]	喻缇, 周乔, 黄元丁, 季平, 黄弘. 下颌切牙管的三维空间分布规律研究及对颏部取骨的范围探讨[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(2): 157-161.
[8]	黄文博, 杜申钊, 曾静, 谷耀东. 四种口腔修复材料在锥形束CT与螺旋CT口腔全冠图像中的伪影对比研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(12): 1094-1098.
[9]	汝悦, 刘国良, 王玲. 数字化定位导板在完全骨埋伏牙拔除术中的临床疗效分析[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(12): 1108-1114.
[10]	刘培, 王芳, 李波, 魏丽丽, 程勇. CBCT评价下颌第三磨牙引导管与阻生状态的研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(9): 821-824.
[11]	曹丹彤, 古丽比热·艾合买提, 高安天, 曹雅, 谭葆春, 王从跃, 林梓桐. 根管治疗后隐匿性牙根纵裂临床特征分析及CBCT影像学研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(7): 644-647.
[12]	孙紫晔, 高辉, 肖丹娜. 不同颅面型骨性Ⅲ类女性颌骨生长方向的分析[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(6): 599-602.
[13]	任亚敏, 王亚楠, 陈劲宏, 郭人铭, 刘晗哲, 崔淑霞. 正畸对根管治疗牙牙根吸收的影响因素研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(5): 459-461.
[14]	宋娟. 单侧完全性唇腭裂患者鼻腔通气情况的临床研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2020, 36(1): 24-27.
[15]	方艳君, 宣汉生, 潘婉, 梁珊珊, 孟柳燕. 下颌第一磨牙远中4根管1例[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2019, 35(8): 814-816.