›› 2019, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (2): 88-91.

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

上颌第二磨牙冠根解剖形态关系分析:CBCT研究

罗瑶1,徐海2,张光东3   

  1. 1. 南京医科大学附属口腔医院
    2. 南京医科大学口腔疾病研究江苏省重点实验室
    3. 南京医科大学口腔医学院
  • 收稿日期:2019-02-27 修回日期:2019-05-15 出版日期:2019-06-25 发布日期:2019-07-01
  • 通讯作者: 张光东 E-mail:egd_zhang@njmu.edu.cn

Analysis of the relationship between crown and root anatomy in maxillary second molar: a CBCT study

  • Received:2019-02-27 Revised:2019-05-15 Online:2019-06-25 Published:2019-07-01

摘要: 目的:通过锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)图像来研究一中国人群上颌第二磨牙牙冠的解剖形态与其牙根及根管数目之间的关系。方法:随机选取210名患者的410颗上颌第二磨牙CBCT图像,通过Mimics 10.01软件观察统计其牙根及根管数目。对上颌第二磨牙进行三维重建,测量其颊舌径长及近远中径长,分析测量结果与根管数目之间的关系,以及 面形态与牙根数目的关系。结果:42.20%的上颌第二磨牙出现牙根融合,形态以三根三根管居多,其发生率为46.83%。不同根管类型的上颌第二磨牙的颊舌径、近远中径分别为单根管(10.21±0.50)、(8.82±0.17)mm,双根管(11.25±0.55)、(9.47±0.42)mm,三根管(11.68±0.68)、(9.47±0.54)mm,四根管(12.01±0.63)、(9.52±0.57)mm。不同根管类型的颊舌径均存在差异(P<0.05);除了单根管以外,其余各根管类型的近远中径之间无显著差异(P>0.05);三根管和四根管所对应的颊舌径/近远中径的比值与其余两根管类型也存在差异(P<0.05)。不同 面形态的牙根数目存在差异(P<0.05)。结论:上颌第二磨牙解剖外形与牙根及根管数目之间存在一定联系,可为临床根管治疗提供参考。

关键词: 上颌第二磨牙, 锥形束计算机断层扫描, 解剖形态

Abstract: Objective: To detect the relationship between the anatomical morphology in the maxillary second molar teeth and the number of root canals in a Chinese population by cone-beam CT images. Methods: 210 CBCT images with maxillary second molars (410 teeth) were randomly selected. The number of roots and root canals were observed and counted by Mimics 10.01 software. Three-dimensional reconstruction of maxillary second molars was performed. The buccolingual diameter and mesiodistal diameter were measured on three-dimensional reconstructed dental models. The relationship between the measurement results and the number of root canals, as well as the relationship between the occlusal morphology and the number of roots were analyzed. Results: 42.20% of the maxillary second molars had root fusion. Three canals were the most common form, and its incidence was 46.83%. The buccolingual diameter and mesiodistal diameter of the maxillary second molars with different root canal types were single canal ((10.21±0.50)mm, (8.82±0.17)mm), double canals ((11.25±0.55)mm, (9.47±0.42)mm), three canals ((11.68±0.68)mm, (9.47±0.54)mm), and four canals((12.01±0.63)mm, (9.52±0.57)mm). The buccolingual diameters of different root canal types were different significantly (P<0.05). Except for single root canal, there was no significant difference in the mesiodistal diameters between other root canal types (P>0.05). The ratio of buccolingual diameter and mesiodistal diameter corresponding to three and four root canals were also different from that of the other two root canal types (P<0.05). The numbers of roost with different occlusal morphology were different (P<0.05). Conclusions: There was a certain relationship between the anatomical shape and the number of root canals or roots in maxillary second molars, which could provide reference for clinical root canal therapy.

Key words: Maxillary second molar, Cone beam computed tomography, Anatomic morphology