背景:这项研究通过对现有文献的系统回顾来评估上颌犬齿(MxC)的内部形态。
方法:截至2024年6月的研究文章从五个电子数据库中检索(MEDLINE通过PubMed,Embase,Scopus,LILACS,和Cochrane)。使用了预定义的搜索词和关键字,通过所选文章的交叉引用和参考书目确定了潜在的研究。
结果:确定了200项研究,删除了73个重复项,筛选了127条记录,在咨询标题和摘要后删除了113个。经过全文咨询和手工查找,最后包括22项研究。使用BriseñoMarroquín等人描述根管构型(RCC)的方法。(2015)和Vertucci(Ve)(1984),MxC最常报告的RCC为1-1-1/1(VeI,75.4-100%),2-2-1/1(VeII,0.1-20%),1-2-1/1(VeIII,0.1-11.6%),2-2-2/2(VeIV,0.1-0.4%),1-1-2/2(VeV,0.1-2.4%),2-1-2/2(VeVI,0.5-1.2%),和1-2-1/2(VeVII,0.1-0.2%)。六项研究(欧洲/亚洲)的荟萃分析显示,2-2-1/1(VeII)的RCC数量显着增加(OR[95CI]=1.34[0.53,3.41]),1-2-1/1(VeIII)(OR[95CI]=2.07[1.01,4.26]),和1-1-2/2(VeV)(OR[95CI]=2.93[1.07,8.07]),在男性中观察到,女性为2-2-2/2(VeIV)(OR[95CI]=0.08[0.00,4.00])。在1-1-1/1(VeI)和1-2-1/2(VeVII)的RCC中未观察到性别差异。
结论:锥形束计算机断层扫描是研究MxCRCC最常用的方法。尽管MxC中1-1-1/1型(VeI)RCC的患病率很高,在高达25%的病例中,临床医师应对更复杂和性别分化的模式保持警惕,以防止牙髓治疗并发症或失败.
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the internal morphology of maxillary canines (MxC) through a systematic review of existing literature.
METHODS: Research articles up to June 2024 were retrieved from five electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, and Cochrane). Predefined search terms and keywords were used, and potential studies were identified by cross-referencing and bibliographies of the selected articles reviewed.
RESULTS: Two hundred studies were identified, 73 duplicates were removed, 127 records were screened, and 113 were removed after consultation of title and abstract. After full-text consultation and hand searching, finally 22 studies were included. Using the method for describing the root canal configuration (RCC) of Briseño Marroquín et al. (2015) and Vertucci (Ve) (1984), the most frequently reported RCC of MxC were 1-1-1/1 (Ve I, 75.4-100%), 2-2-1/1 (Ve II, 0.1-20%), 1-2-1/1 (Ve III, 0.1-11.6%), 2-2-2/2 (Ve IV, 0.1-0.4%), 1-1-2/2 (Ve V, 0.1-2.4%), 2-1-2/2 (Ve VI, 0.5-1.2%), and 1-2-1/2 (Ve VII, 0.1-0.2%). The meta-analysis of six studies (Europe/Asia) showed that a significantly higher number of RCC of 2-2-1/1 (Ve II) (OR [95%CI] = 1.34 [0.53, 3.41]), 1-2-1/1 (Ve III) (OR [95%CI] = 2.07 [1.01, 4.26]), and 1-1-2/2 (Ve V) (OR [95%CI] = 2.93 [1.07, 8.07]), were observed in males, and 2-2-2/2 (Ve IV) (OR [95%CI] = 0.08 [0.00, 4.00]) in females. No sex differences in the RCC of 1-1-1/1 (Ve I) and 1-2-1/2 (Ve VII) were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Cone beam computed tomography is the most frequently used method for research on the RCC of MxC. Despite the high prevalence of type 1-1-1/1 (Ve I) RCC in MxC, clinicians should remain vigilant for more complex and sex-differentiated patterns in up to 25% of cases to prevent endodontic treatment complications or failures.