Dataset Information

Four-Rooted Maxillary First Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The majority of human maxillary first molars is usually described as having three roots, but different morphologies were documented in several studies and case reports. One very rare and less investigated anatomical anomaly is the occurrence of four radicular structures in the upper first molars. This communication aimed to define the prevalence of four-rooted maxillary first molars on a meta-analytical basis. The external and internal morphology of these teeth was described by the collection of published case reports.

Materials and methods

Six electronic databases were accessed to collect case reports dealing with four-rooted maxillary first molars, as well as population-based cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) studies. Afterward, the publications were selected according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria and evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. The teeth of the chosen case reports were then independently analyzed by two dental professionals according to different dental classifications. Furthermore, the population studies were meta-analyzed to calculate the global and regional prevalence of four-rooted maxillary molars.

Results

Included were forty-nine population-based CBCT studies containing 26663 maxillary first molars. Upon these data, the global incidence of four-rooted maxillary molars was meta-analytically determined as 0.047% (95%-CI:0.011-0.103%). In combination with the case reports, it was pointed out that this anomaly is distributed worldwide. Furthermore, forty-eight case reports were included containing fifty-three maxillary molars with four roots. The analyzed teeth exhibited Versiani´s pulpal chamber floor Types A and B. The majority of four-rooted maxillary first molars were classified as Type I regarding Christie's configuration. But, also 7.54% of the altered teeth could not be described by this classification. 62.34% exhibited four root canals, but also variations with five, six, or seven canals were identified. Furthermore, a significant difference was found in the occurrence rate between male and female patients.

Conclusion

Due to the worldwide occurrence, dental professionals should be aware of this rare anomaly to avoid treatment errors, especially during endodontic or surgical therapies.

SUBMITTER: Magnucki G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7843171 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Four-Rooted Maxillary First Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Magnucki Gabriel G Mietling Sven V K SVK

International journal of dentistry 20210120

<h4>Objectives</h4>The majority of human maxillary first molars is usually described as having three roots, but different morphologies were documented in several studies and case reports. One very rare and less investigated anatomical anomaly is the occurrence of four radicular structures in the upper first molars. This communication aimed to define the prevalence of four-rooted maxillary first molars on a meta-analytical basis. The external and internal morphology of these teeth was described b ...[more]

PMID: 33542735

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplant-supported overdentures offer enhanced mechanical properties, which lead to better patient satisfaction and survival rates than conventional dentures. However, it is unclear whether these satisfaction levels and survival rates depend on the number of implants supporting the overdenture. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to compare maxillary overdentures supported by four or six splinted implants in terms of patient satisfaction, implant survival, overdenture survival, and prosthodontic complications.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), and EMBASE databases were systematically searched and complemented by hand searching from 2000 to 2019, employing a combination of specific keywords. Studies comparing the use of four versus six implants for supporting overdentures with at least one-year of follow-up after prosthesis installation and including ten fully edentulous patients were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was analyzed with Cochrane's RoB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. Implants and prosthesis survival rates were analyzed by random-effects meta-analysis and expressed as risk ratios or risk differences, respectively, and by the non-parametric unpaired Fisher's test.ResultsA total of 15 from 1865 articles were included, and reported follow-up times after implant placement ranged from 1 to 10 years. Irrespective of the number of implants used, high scores were reported by all studies investigating patient satisfaction. Meta-analysis and non-parametric Fisher's test showed no statistical differences regarding the survival rate of implants (P = 0.34, P = 0.3) or overdentures (P = 0.74, P = 0.9) when using 4 versus 6 splinted implants to support overdentures, and no significant differences regarding prosthodontic complications were found between groups. Randomized studies presented high RoB and non-randomized studies presented acceptable quality.ConclusionsWithin the limits of this systematic review, we can conclude that the bar-supported overdenture on four implants is not inferior to the overdenture supported by six implants for rehabilitating the edentulous maxilla, in terms of patient satisfaction, survival rates of implants and overdentures, and prosthodontic complications.

Project description:Background and objectives:The objective was to systematically review transalveolar transplantation of maxillary canines and the long-term outcome for an average follow-up period of 2 years or more. Data collection and analysis:A systematic review of the currently available literature until December 2017 was conducted, using Medline, Cochrane Central, Web off Science, and PubMed. Articles were screened for 1. indications, 2. contra-indications, 3. surgical planning, 4. surgical technique, 5. associated risk factors, and 6. long-term outcome for transalveolar transplantation of maxillary canines with the following outcome measures: bone-related outcomes, tooth-related outcomes, soft tissue-related outcomes, and aesthetic outcome measures. Descriptive statistics, as well as a quality assessment of included articles, were performed. Following study retrieval and selection, relevant data was extracted and the risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Results:Twelve articles were included in this review. These studies included outcome data for 783 autotransplanted maxillary canines, with long-term studies indicating a clinically acceptable overall outcome. Limitations:Since the lack of randomized controlled trials considering this topic, the quality of the evidence in the present review is considered low. However, impacted maxillary canines are a rare anomaly and different aspects, such as position of the impacted canine, patient's age and patient's demands, and expectancies must be taken into account, it is practically impossible to randomize treatment. Conclusions:There is sufficient evidence to justify the transalveolar transplantation of maxillary canines as a legitimate treatment technique for impacted maxillary canines deemed difficult to treat with surgical exposure and subsequent orthodontic alignment. Long-term studies have shown that a good overall outcome is to be expected. There is no clear agreement in the literature on the indications and contra-indications for transalveolar transplantation of maxillary canines. Implication of key findings:It is highly desirable that further research on this issue be undertaken, high-quality observational studies are recommended. Registration:PROSPERO (CRD42017056348).

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of the current systematic review was to compare the clinical effects of bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) with conventional tooth-borne RME in the treatment of maxillary deficiency.MethodsNine databases were searched up to September 2018 for randomized clinical trials comparing bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME to conventional tooth-borne RME in patients of any age or sex. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE.ResultsA total of 12 papers on 6 unique trials with 264 patients (42.4% male; average age 12.3 years) were finally included. Limited evidence indicated that bone-borne RME was associated with greater suture opening at the first molar post-retention (1 trial; MD 2.0 mm; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6 mm; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant differences could be found regarding tooth inclination, nasal cavity width, and root resorption (very low to low evidence quality). Hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME was associated with less buccal tipping of the first premolar (2 trials; MD - 4.0°; 95% CI - 0.9 to - 7.1°; moderate evidence quality) and lower nasal airway resistance post-retention (1 trial; MD - 0.2 Pa s/cm3; 95% CI - 0.4 to 0 Pa s/cm3; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant difference could be found regarding skeletal maxillary width, molar inclination, and analgesic use (low to moderate evidence quality). The main limitations affecting the validity of the present findings were (a) imprecision due to the inclusion of few trials with limited sample sizes that precluded robust detection of existing differences and (b) methodological issues of the included trials that could lead to bias.ConclusionsLimited evidence from randomized trials indicates that bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME might present advantages in terms of increased sutural opening, reduced tooth tipping, and lower nasal airway resistance compared to conventional tooth-borne RME. However, the limited number of existing studies and issues in their conduct or reporting preclude the drawing of definite conclusions.Review registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42017079107 ).

Dataset Information

Four-Rooted Maxillary First Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Four-Rooted Maxillary First Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure