The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Ethnical Anatomical Differences in Mandibular First Permanent Molars between Indian and Saudi Arabian Subpopulations: A Retrospective Cross-sectional Study

Mohammed Mashyakhy, Thilla S Vinothkumar, Anandhi S Arthisri, Apathsakayan Renugalakshmi, Abdulwahab Alamir, Ahmed Juraybi

Keywords : Cone-beam computed tomography, Dental pulp cavity, Ethnic groups, Mandibular first molar, Retrospective studies

Citation Information : Mashyakhy M, Vinothkumar TS, Arthisri AS, Renugalakshmi A, Alamir A, Juraybi A. Ethnical Anatomical Differences in Mandibular First Permanent Molars between Indian and Saudi Arabian Subpopulations: A Retrospective Cross-sectional Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (5):484-490.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3100

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 09-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim and objective: The variation in the anatomy of the root canal system has anthropological and demographic significances. The aim of this study was to compare the number of roots, root canals, and internal canal morphology of permanent mandibular first molars between Indian and Saudi Arabian populations. Materials and methods: A total of 523 (255 teeth of Indian sample and 268 teeth of Saudi Arabian sample) mandibular first molar (M1) were included for comparative analysis using cone-beam computed tomography images based on the inclusion criteria. The external and internal morphologies were assessed and compared by trained endodontist and the data was recorded. Results: M1 with three roots were found in 3.9% of the Indian population and 6% of the Saudi population. Overall, high prevalence was observed in two roots (95.0%), three canals (70.4%), Vertucci type IV of the mesial root (56.0%), and Vertucci type I of the distal root (76.7%). Comparison between Indian and Saudi Arabian molars revealed significant differences in relation to the number of canals (p <0.001), Vertucci types of the mesial root (p = 0.008), and Vertucci types of the distal root (p <0.001). Differences between genders for the whole sample revealed significant differences in relation to Vertucci types of the distal root (p = 0.025) with a relatively high male prevalence of type I (54.4%) and type IV (57.1%). Conclusion: The predominant parameters of M1 were two roots, three canals, Vertucci type II and IV mesial root configuration, and type I distal root configuration irrespective of both populations. The root canal morphology of Indian and Saudi Arabian populations shares a common trait of Asian origin. Clinical significance: The likelihood of predicting the complex system of the root canal with marked preference to ethnic identity would be a clinical benefit for the dentist performing root canal treatment.

PDF Share
  1. Przesmycka A, Tomczyk J. Differentiation of root canal morphology – a review of the literature. Anthropol Rev 2016;79(3):221–239. DOI: 10.1515/anre- 2016-0018.
  2. Martins JNR, Gu Y, Marques D, et al. Differences on the root and root canal morphologies between Asian and white ethnic groups analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod 2018;44(7):1096–1104. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.04.001.
  3. Mashyakhy M, Chourasia HR, Halboub E, et al. Anatomical variations and bilateral symmetry of roots and root canal system of mandibular first permanent molars in Saudi Arabian population utilizing cone-beam computed tomography. Saudi Dent J 2019;31(4):481–486. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.04.001.
  4. al-Nazhan S. Incidence of four canals in root-canal-treated mandibular first molars in a Saudi Arabian sub-population. Int Endod J 1999;32(1):49–52. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00188.x.
  5. Gulabivala K, Aung TH, Alavi A, et al. Root and canal morphology of Burmese mandibular molars. Int Endod J 2001;34(5):359–370. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00399.x.
  6. Sert S, Bayirli G. Evaluation of the root canal configurations of the mandibular and maxillary permanent teeth by gender in the Turkish population. J Endod 2004;30(6):391–398. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200406000-00004.
  7. Ahmed HA, Abu-bakr NH, Yahia NA, et al. Root and canal morphology of permanent mandibular molars in a Sudanese population. Int Endod J 2007;40(10):766–771. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.1283.x.
  8. Vertucci FJ. Root canal morphology and its relationship to endodontic procedures. Endod Top 2005;10(1):3–29. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00129.x.
  9. Kerekes K, Tronstad L. Morphometric observations on root canals of human anterior teeth. J Endod 1977;3(1):24–29. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(77)80218-5.
  10. Omer OE, Al Shalabi RM, Jennings M, et al. A comparison between clearing and radiographic techniques in the study of the root-canal anatomy of maxillary first and second molars. Int Endod J 2004;37(5):291–296. DOI: 10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00731.x.
  11. Naoum HJ, Love RM, Chandler NP, et al. Effect of X-ray beam angulation and intraradicular contrast medium on radiographic interpretation of lower first molar root canal anatomy. Int Endod J 2003;36(1):12–19. DOI: 10.1046/j.0143-2885.2003.00604.x.
  12. Kim Y, Perinpanayagam H, Lee JK, et al. Comparison of mandibular first molar mesial root canal morphology using micro-computed tomography and clearing technique. Acta Odontol Scand 2015;73(6):427–432. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2014.976263.
  13. Zhang R, Yang H, Yu X, et al. Use of CBCT to identify the morphology of maxillary permanent molar teeth in a Chinese subpopulation. Int Endod J 2011;44(2):162–169. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01826.x.
  14. Martins JNR, Marques D, Silva E, et al. Prevalence of C-shaped canal morphology using cone beam computed tomography – a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2019;52(11):1556–1572. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13169.
  15. Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1984;58(5):589–599. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(84)90085-9.
  16. Rodrigues CT, Oliveira-Santos C de, Bernardineli N, et al. Prevalence and morphometric analysis of three-rooted mandibular first molars in a Brazilian subpopulation. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24(5):535–542. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720150511.
  17. Agarwal M, Trivedi H, Mathur M, et al. The radix entomolaris and radix paramolaris: an endodontic challenge. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(4):496–499. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1568.
  18. Felsypremila G, Vinothkumar TS, Kandaswamy D. Anatomic symmetry of root and root canal morphology of posterior teeth in Indian subpopulation using cone beam computed tomography: a retrospective study. Eur J Dent 2015;9(4):500–507. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.172623.
  19. Deng PU, Halim MS, Masudi SM, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis on root and canal morphology of mandibular first permanent molar among multiracial population in East Coast Malaysian population. Eur J Dent 2018;12(3):410–416. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_82_18.
  20. Al-Alawi H, Al-Nazhan S, Al-Maflehi N, et al. The prevalence of radix molaris in the mandibular first molars of a Saudi subpopulation based on cone-beam computed tomography. Restor Dent Endod 2020;45(1):e1. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e1.
  21. Huang RY, Cheng WC, Chen CJ, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of the root morphology of mandibular first molars with distolingual roots. Int Endod J 2010;43(6):478–484. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01702.x.
  22. Peiris R. Root and canal morphology of human permanent teeth in a Sri Lankan and Japanese population. Anthropol Sci 2008;116(2): 123–133. DOI: 10.1537/ase.070723.
  23. Torres A, Jacobs R, Lambrechts P, et al. Characterization of mandibular molar root and canal morphology using cone beam computed tomography and its variability in Belgian and Chilean population samples. Imaging Sci Dent 2015;45(2):95–101. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.2.95.
  24. von Zuben M, Martins JNR, Berti L, et al. Worldwide prevalence of mandibular second molar C-shaped morphologies evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod 2017;43(9):1442–1447. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.04.016.
  25. Scott GR, Turner CG. Geographic variation in tooth crown and root morphology. In: The anthropology of modern human teeth: dental morphology and its variation in recent human populations. Cambridge studies in biological and evolutionary anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997. p. 165–242. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316529843.006.
  26. Peiris R, Takahashi M, Sasaki K, et al. Root and canal morphology of permanent mandibular molars in a Sri Lankan population. Odontology 2007;95(1):16–23. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-007-0074-8.
  27. Younes SA, Al-Shammery AR, El-Angbawi MF. Three-rooted permanent mandibular first molars of Asian and black groups in the Middle East. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;69(1):102–105. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(90)90276-X.
  28. Ballullaya SV, Vemuri S, Kumar PR. Variable permanent mandibular first molar: review of literature. J Conserv Dent 2013;16(2):99–110. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.108176.
  29. de Toubes KM, Côrtes MI, Valadares MA, et al. Comparative analysis of accessory mesial canal identification in mandibular first molars by using four different diagnostic methods. J Endod 2012;38(4):436–441. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.12.035.
  30. Patel S, Brown J, Semper M, et al. European Society of Endodontology position statement: use of cone beam computed tomography in Endodontics: European Society of Endodontology (ESE) developed by. Int Endod J 2019;52(12):1675–1678. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13187.
  31. Chourasia HR, Meshram GK, Warhadpande M, et al. Root canal morphology of mandibular first permanent molars in an Indian population. Int J Dent 2012;2012:745142. DOI: 10.1155/2012/745152.
  32. de Souza-Freitas JA, Lopes ES, Casati-Alvares L. Anatomic variations of lower first permanent molar roots in two ethnic groups. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;31(2):274–278. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(71)90083-1.
  33. Walker RT. Root form and canal anatomy of mandibular first molars in a southern Chinese population. Dent Traumatol 1988;4(1):19–22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1988.tb00287.x.
  34. Calberson FL, De Moor RJ, Deroose CA. The radix entomolaris and paramolaris: clinical approach in endodontics. J Endod 2007;33(1): 58–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.05.007.
  35. Chandra SS, Chandra S, Shankar P, et al. Prevalence of radix entomolaris in mandibular permanent first molars: a study in a South Indian population. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112(3):e77–e82. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.02.016.
  36. Schäfer E, Breuer D, Janzen S. The prevalence of three-rooted mandibular permanent first molars in a German population. J Endod 2009;35(2):202–205. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.010.
  37. Pan JYY, Parolia A, Chuah SR, et al. Root canal morphology of permanent teeth in a Malaysian subpopulation using cone-beam computed tomography. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):14. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0710-z.
  38. Miloglu O, Arslan H, Barutcigil C, et al. Evaluating root and canal configuration of mandibular first molars with cone beam computed tomography in a Turkish population. J Dent Sci 2013;8(1):80–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2012.09.002.
  39. Kim SY, Kim BS, Woo J, et al. Morphology of mandibular first molars analyzed by cone-beam computed tomography in a Korean population: variations in the number of roots and canals. J Endod 2013;39(12):1516–1521. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.015.
  40. Pérez-Heredia M, Ferrer-Luque CM, Bravo M, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic study of root anatomy and canal configuration of molars in a Spanish population. J Endod 2017;43(9):1511–1516. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.03.026.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.