Mesiobuccal and Palatal Interorifice Distance May Predict the Presence of the Second Mesiobuccal Canal in Maxillary Second Molars With Fused Roots

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate if the configuration of canal orifices can predict the presence of a second mesiobuccal canal (MB2) in maxillary second molars with fused roots. Methods: Maxillary second molars with fused roots (N = 150) were scanned in a micro?computed tomographic device (pixel size = 9 mm) and evaluated regarding the root fusion type and the incidence of the MB2 canal. The centers of the canal orifices were connected, and the angles formed by the intersection of these lines as well as their distances were measured and statistically compared (1-way analysis of variance). Specimens were then assigned to 2 groups according to the presence (n = 65) or absence (n = 50) of the MB2 canal and compared regarding the angles and interorifice distances using the Welch t test. A binary logistic regression model estimated the association between the interorifice distance, the fusion type, and the presence of the MB2 canal, whereas receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic abilities of significant variables. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: The most common fusion types were 1 and 6, and MB2 canal incidence was 47.3%. No statistical difference was observed in the angles or interorifice distances among teeth with different fusion types (P > .05). Distances from the Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate if the configuration of canal orifices can predict the presence of a second mesiobuccal canal (MB2) in maxillary second molars with fused roots. Methods: Maxillary second molars with fused roots (N = 150) were scanned in a micro?computed tomographic device (pixel size = 9 mm) and evaluated regarding the root fusion type and the incidence of the MB2 canal. The centers of the canal orifices were connected, and the angles formed by the intersection of these lines as well as their distances were measured and statistically compared (1-way analysis of variance). Specimens were then assigned to 2 groups according to the presence (n = 65) or absence (n = 50) of the MB2 canal and compared regarding the angles and interorifice distances using the Welch t test. A binary logistic regression model estimated the association between the interorifice distance, the fusion type, and the presence of the MB2 canal, whereas receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic abilities of significant variables. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: The most common fusion types were 1 and 6, and MB2 canal incidence was 47.3%. No statistical difference was observed in the angles or interorifice distances among teeth with different fusion types (P .05). Distances from the mesiobuccal (MB) to the distobuccal and palatal (P) canal orifices as well as the MB and P angles were significantly higher in the presence of an MB2 canal (P < .05). A binary logistic regression model revealed that MB-distobuccal and MB-P distances were significant in the presence of an MB2 canal (P < .05). Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that MB-P distance had acceptable diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of MB2 canal presence. Sensitivity (specificity) calculated from the MB-P distances of 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 mm were 89.2% (36.5%), 76.9% (58.4%), and 44.4% (71.4%), respectively. Conclusions: MB-P interorifice distance is a strong predictor of the presence of the MB2 canal in maxillary second molars with fused roots. (J Endod 2021;47:585?591.)