Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Morphology and root canal configuration of maxillary canines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 944 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

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.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Detailed knowledge and comprehensive understanding of the three-dimensional internal morphology and root canal configuration are crucial for the success of endodontic treatment [1,2,3]. Awareness of the complexity of root canal anatomy simplifies the planning of endodontic therapy and the respective treatment steps, furthermore, diminishes the possibility of iatrogenic errors [1,2,3,4]. The existence of numerous morphological differences emphasizes the importance of diagnosing and evaluating each case individually. Numerous studies show that the most frequent root canal configuration (RCC) of single-rooted maxillary canines is a single root canal from the pulp chamber to the apex (1–1-1/1, Vertucci I) [5,6,7,8,9]. However, different populations studied using modern 3D imaging examination methods show that up to a quarter of the teeth have anatomical variations [7,8,9,10,11,12,13], which can offer problems and additional challenges for the different steps of root canal treatment that could lead to failure. In the past, various ex vivo methods have been used to study the morphology of root canal systems such as clearing technique, scanning electron microscopy, and light microscopy [1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 15]. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has proven to be a modern and particularly effective tool for such in vivo examinations, as it offers a superior level of detail compared to previous methods [16, 17], even if CBCT is inferior to micro-computed tomography regarding imaging of fine structures and details [18]. The combination of three-dimensional imaging and software analysis allows a non-destructive clinical examination of complex internal morphological structures of the root canal system without compromising the integrity of the tooth [16, 17]. The classifications of RCC proposed by Vertucci [1] and Weine et al. [2] et al. describe possible root canal system variations; unfortunately, they cannot respond to the morphological intricacies of some root canals in comparison to more modern classifications describing root canal anatomy or root canal configuration [3, 4]. The current study aimed to systematically review the literature on the internal morphology and in particular root canal configuration of maxillary canines (MxC) and to identify sex influence on variation in root canal morphology.

Materials and methods

A systematic review was undertaken with the aim to examine the published literature on the internal morphology and root canal configuration (RCC) of MxC up to June 2024. The following five databases were searched: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database, LILACS, and Scopus as well as grey literature. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed by the current systematic review [19]. Furthermore, the review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) system (CRD42023394478). In the review protocol inclusion criteria were defined as follows: randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, comparative, validation, and evaluation studies of the internal morphology and RCC of MxC without any restrictions. Case reports and reviews were excluded. A standardized comprehensive search strategy was used, including a combination of MeSH terms and keywords: (“root canal configuration” OR “root canal system” OR “root canal morphology”) AND (“maxillary canine” OR “maxillary anterior teeth”) AND (“morphology” OR “anatomy”). Cross-referencing and hand-search were performed by using the bibliographies of full-text articles. Studies addressing morphological anatomies other than the internal morphology and root canal configuration of maxillary canines were excluded. Duplicates or repeated articles were removed, and the remaining ones were evaluated based on their title and abstract by two independent reviewers (T.R., A.L.W.). Papers not relevant to the topic were discarded again at this stage. The remaining papers underwent a full-text review and were examined again by the same two independent reviewers. All the included articles were summarized in a table, referring to the following details: authors, publication year, quality assessment, place of origin, number of samples, methodology, sex (if mentioned), and root canal configuration using the classifications of Vertucci [1], Weine et al. [2], and Briseño Marroquín et al. [3]. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Anatomical QUality Assessment (AQUA) tool [20], specifically designed for assessing the quality of anatomical studies included in meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers (T.R., A.L.W.) screened the articles for bias assessment. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer (T.G.W.) was consulted to achieve consensus. The quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers (A.L.W., T.G.W.) following the customized quality assessment tool developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools).

The statistical analysis of the included studies for the meta-analyses was performed using Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.4, Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014). The odds ratio (OR) was used to determine the effect size. The I2 statistic was used to quantify the degree of variability between studies, which was due to heterogeneity rather than chance [21]. Based on the degree of heterogeneity (I2 < 35% for low heterogeneity, fixed-effects meta-analysis; I2 > 35% for substantial heterogeneity, random-effects meta-analysis), the appropriate meta-analysis model was selected [22, 23]. The primary outcome measures comparing different root canal configurations, patient sex, and geographical factors were presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for studies with binary outcomes. A p-value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant.

Results

The literature search through five databases resulted in 200 articles. The 127 remaining articles after removing all duplicates were screened by title and abstract. 14 articles were consulted in full text and four articles were excluded. Twelve articles were added to this investigation after a hand search, resulting in a total of 22 reviewed articles. The selection process is shown in a PRISMA flowchart diagram [19] (Fig. 1). Data of the risk of bias assessment using the Anatomical QUality Assessment (AQUA) tool can be found in Supplementary Materials. The included investigations were conducted in various regions and populations around the world, utilizing different methodologies, encompassing both sexes and without age limitations.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Table 1 shows a summary of the included studies regarding the RCC of MxC until December 2023. The table is divided into detailed information on the author(s), publication year, quality assessment, population, sample number, research method, and RCC according to the classification proposed by Vertucci [1], and Weine et al. [2], and Briseño Marroquín et al. [3]. The most frequently observed RCC of MxC, regardless of the research methodology or the sample number, is 1–1-1/1 (Vertucci’s I or Weine et al. I) with a frequency of 75.4 – 100% [1, 5, 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. The second most common RCC in MxC is Briseño Marroquín et al.’s 2–2-1/1 (also known as Vertucci’s II; Weine’s II) with 0.1–20% [12, 15, 23,24,25, 27, 28], and the following common RCC with frequency up to 11.6% is Briseño Marroquín et al.’s type 1–2-1/1 (Vertucci’s III) [6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 24,25,26,27,28,29, 32, 33], whereas the Weine et al. classification does not include this RCC type. Among the summarized studies in Table 1, other RCCs such as 2–2-2/2 (Vertucci IV or Weine et al. III), 1–1-2/2 (Vertucci V), 2–1-2/2 (Vertucci VI) and 1–2-1/2 have been also observed less frequently. The CBCT analysis is reported as the most used research method [7,8,9,10,11,12,13, 25, 26, 28,29,30,31,32,33], with the radiographic [5], staining and clearing [1, 14, 15, 24], or micro-computed tomography [27] methods less frequently reported. Six studies reported sex-specific differences [8, 11, 13, 28, 29, 32]; data from the meta-analysis of these studies differed by origin (Europe/Asia) are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

Table 1 Included studies summarizing various comparative and non-comparative morphological studies of the root canal configuration (RCC) of maxillary canines (MxC). The RCC are described according to the classifications of Vertucci (Ve) [1], Weine et al. (We) [2], and Briseño Marroquín et al. (Br) [3]
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Root canal configuration 1–1-1/1 (Vertucci I), 2–2-1/1 (Vertucci II), and 1–2-1/1 (Vertucci III)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Root canal configuration 2–2-2/2 (Vertucci IV), 1–1-2/2 (Vertucci V), and -2–1/2 (Vertucci VII)

Full size image

Discussion

This study aims to systematically review the literature regarding the internal morphology and root canal configuration (RCC) of maxillary canines (MxC) to provide the clinician with an overview that should lead to better understanding to make better treatment decisions leading to a better outcome in root canal treatments.

The present systematic review shows that the Briseño Marroquín et al.’s type 1–1-1/1 RCC of maxillary canines is the most frequently observed root canal configuration across all studies, with the lowest frequencies of this RCC type reported by Weng et al. [15] and Somalinga Amardeep et al. [25] at 75.4% and 81.6%, respectively. In half of the 22 studies analyzed, a Briseño Marroquín et al.’s 2–2-1/1 RCC (type II according to Vertucci and Weine) was reported as the second most common RCC with a frequency between 0.1 and 20% [12, 15, 24,25,26, 28, 29]. Nearly all studies examined reported an Briseño Marroquín et al.’s RCC of 1–2-1/1 (Vertucci's III, while the Weine et al. classification does not include this RCC type) as the third most common RCC with a frequency between 0.1 and 11.6% [7, 8, 12, 13, 26, 28, 29, 33]. In all studies, other Briseño Marroquín et al.’s RCCs such as 2–2-2/2, 1–1-2/2, 2–1-2/2, 1–2-1/2, and 1–1-3/3 (Vertucci types IV, V, VI, VII, VIII) were reported less frequently. However, one of the twenty-two included studies were published before the existence of Vertucci’s classification [5], reporting only a single root with RCC type 1–1-1/1 (Ve I).

There are plenty of research methods that have been used to examine the internal root canal morphology [1, 5, 6, 8, 27]. However, nowadays, micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) imaging is widely accepted as the gold standard for ex vivo research for internal tooth morphology and root canal configuration [18]. Advances in non-destructive digital three-dimensional imaging systems such as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and micro-CT imaging can provide data that simplify the analytical process for describing internal morphology [34]. These methods offer the possibility of obtaining both quantitative and qualitative information about the samples noninvasively and without destroying them, and of reusing the samples for future examinations, if necessary, in contrast to alternative techniques that were frequently used in the past, such as staining and clearing [35, 36]. Although CBCT enables less detailed visualization of fine structures than micro-CT, it allows clinical use in vivo, which is currently not possible with either staining and clearing techniques or with humans using micro-CT due to the high radiation exposure.

Various classification systems for root canal configuration are given in the literature [1,2,3,4], whereby the systems of Vertucci [1] and Weine et al. [2] were the most used systems for many years. In the meantime, more modern systems are used to describe the root canal configuration, which allows additional information about the entire root [3, 4].

Six of the twenty-two included studies compared sex differences [8, 11, 13, 14, 28, 32], whereby all studies were examined by CBCT, except for one study using the staining and clearing method [14]. All authors reported that Briseño Marroquín et al.’s RCC of 1–1-1/1 was most observed in both sexes, with up to 99.5% in men and up to 100% in women. It was also observed that there were sex-specific differences in the comparison of studies from Europe and Asia, resulting in increased frequencies regarding different root canal configurations. Furthermore, differences in the studies can be explained by the research methodologies used or ethnic origin. While sex differences were still documented in various studies, the age of the subjects or patients was reported in some studies, but not included in the analysis of the respective studies.

Although the most common Briseño Marroquín et al.’s RCC for MxC is 1–1-1/1 (Ve I), the clinician should always be aware of the complex internal root canal morphology in up to 25% of cases. These could include connecting canals or even accessory root canals that cannot be prepared mechanically, emphasizing the importance of chemical root canal irrigation. The application of an adequate irrigation protocol and a careful obturation technique therefore has an important impact on reducing complications or errors that could compromise the outcome of root canal treatment.

Various limitations should be mentioned, such as possible distortions in the selected studies due to the methodology used or possible artifacts, especially in the digital imaging of CBCT and micro-CT, but also limitations of the selected subjective evaluation criteria and description methodology for root canal configuration. Although it is known that aging, caries or even tooth wear can cause a narrowing of the root canal system due to secondary dentin deposits [24], it has also been reported that they have only a minimal effect on the morphology of the main root canal [24, 37]. Unfortunately, some studies explicitly stated that no information on sex and age was available [25, 27]. Although the age of the patients examined by CBCT may have been available in several included studies, this was unfortunately not included in the analysis regarding the change in root canal configuration. A comparison with ethnic groups of similar mean age would be interesting, with few studies in molars and none for maxillary canines suggesting that age may influence the configuration of the root canal system in certain tooth types [29, 38] or that the frequency of complex root canal configurations as well as the presence of second mesial root canals in molars may decrease with age [39].

Conclusions

Within the limitations of the current systematic review and meta-analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:

  • The most frequently observed RCC of MxC is the 1–1-1/1 (Vertucci’s and Weine’s et al. type I), followed by a 2–2-1/1 (Vertucci’s and Weine’s et al. type II) and 1–2-1/1 (Vertucci’s type III).

  • 25% of cases harbor the possibility of a more complicated RCC, which should always be taken into consideration by the clinician.

  • The most frequently used method for in vivo research on the root canal morphology of MxC, nowadays, is CBCT.

  • A significantly higher number of RCC of 2–2-1/1 (Ve II), 1–2-1/1 (Ve III), and 1–1-2/2 (Ve V) were observed in males and 2–2-2/2 (Ve IV) in females. No sex differences in the RCCs of 1–1-1/1 (Ve I) and 1–2-1/2 (Ve VII) were observed.

Availability of data and materials

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.

References

  1. Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1984;58(5):589–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weine FS, Healey HJ, Gerstein H, Evanson L. Canal configuration in the mesiobuccal root of the maxillary first molar and its endodontic significance. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1969;28(3):419–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Briseño-Marroquín B, Paqué F, Maier K, Willershausen B, Wolf TG. Root canal morphology and configuration of 179 maxillary first molars by means of micro computed tomography: An ex vivo study. J Endod. 2015;41(12):2008–13.

  4. Ahmed HMA, Versiani MA, De-Deus G, Dummer PMH. A new system for classifying root and root canal morphology. Int Endod J. 2017;50(8):761–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pineda F, Kuttler Y. Mesiodistal and buccolingual roentgenographic investigation of 7,275 root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1972;33(1):101–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Calişkan MK, Pehlivan Y, Sepetçioğlu F, Türkün M, Tuncer SS. Root canal morphology of human permanent teeth in a Turkish population. J Endod. 1995;21(4):200–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Almohaimede AA, Alqahtani AA, Alhatlani NM, Alsaloom NS, Alqahtani SA. Interpretation of root canal anatomy of maxillary and mandibular permanent canines in Saudi subpopulation: A cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) Study. Int J Dent. 2021;2021:5574512.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Altunsoy M, Ok E, Nur BG, Aglarci OS, Gungor E, Colak M. A cone-beam computed tomography study of the root canal morphology of anterior teeth in a Turkish population. Eur J Dent. 2014;8(3):302–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Buchanan GD, Gamieldien MY, Fabris-Rotelli I, van Schoor A, Uys A. Root and canal morphology of the permanent anterior dentition in a Black South African population using cone-beam computed tomography and two classification systems. J Oral Sci. 2022;64(3):218–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. da Silva EJ, de Castro RW, Nejaim Y, Silva AI, Haiter-Neto F, Silberman A, Cohenca N. Evaluation of root canal configuration of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth using cone beam computed tomography: An in-vivo study. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(1):19–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Iqbal A, Karobari MI, Alam MK, Khattak O, Alshammari SM, Adil AH, Noorani TY, Algarani HA, Alozani MA, Sirivastava KC, Issrani R. Evaluation of root canal morphology in permanent maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth in Saudi subpopulation using two classification systems: a CBCT study. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:171.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Jain P, Balasubramanian S, Sundaramurthy J, Natanasabapathy V. A cone beam computed tomography of the root canal morphology of maxillary anterior teeth in an institutional-based study in Chennai urban population: An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017;7(Suppl 2):S68-74.

  13. Karobari MI, Noorani TY, Halim MS, Ahmed HMA. Root and canal morphology of the anterior permanent dentition in Malaysian population using two classification systems: A CBCT clinical study. Aust Endod J. 2020;47(2):202–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sert S, Bayirli GS. Evaluation of the root canal configurations of the mandibular and maxillary permanent teeth by gender in the Turkish population. J Endod. 2004;30(6):391–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Weng XL, Yu SB, Zhao SL, Wang HG, Mu T, Tang RY, Zhou XD. Root canal morphology of permanent maxillary teeth in the Han nationality in Chinese Guanzhong area: A new modified root canal staining technique. J Endod. 2009;35(5):651–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bornstein MM, Wölner-Hanssen AB, Sendi P, von Arx T. Detectability of simulated apical lesions on mandibular premolars and molars between radiographic intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography images: an ex vivo study. Dent Traumatol. 2009;25(6):571–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolf TG, Castañeda-Lopez F, Gleißner L, Schulze R, Kuchen R, Briseño-Marroquin B. Detectability of simulated apical lesions on mandibular premolars and molars between radiographic intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography images: an ex vivo study. Sci Rep. 2022;12:14032.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Acar B, Kamburoğlu K, Tatar I, Arıkan V, Çelik HH, Yüksel S, Özen T. Comparison of micro-computerized tomography and cone-beam computerized tomography in the detection of accessory canals in primary molars. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015;45(4):205–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Henry BM, Tomaszewski KA, Ramakrishnan PK, Roy J, Vikse J, Loukas M, Tubbs RS, Walocha JA. Development of the anatomical quality assessment (AQUA) tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Clin Anat. 2017;30(1):6–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Göstemeyer G, da Mata C, McKenna G, Schwendicke F. Atraumatic vs conventional restorative treatment for root caries lesions in older patients: meta- and trial sequential analysis. Gerodontology. 2019;36:285–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wierichs RJ, Carvalho TS, Wolf TG. Efficacy of a self-assembling peptide to remineralize initial caries lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2021;190:103652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Peiris R. Root and canal morphology of human permanent teeth in a Sri Lankan and Japanese population. Anthropol Sci. 2008;116(2):123–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Amardeep NS, Raghu S, Natanasabapathy V. Root canal morphology of permanent maxillary and mandibular canines in Indian population using cone beam computed tomography. Anat Res Int. 2014;2014:731859.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Martins JNR, Marques D, Mata A, Caramês J. Root and root canal morphology of the permanent dentition in a Caucasian population: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Int Endod J. 2017;50(11):1013–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Plascencia H, Cruz Á, Palafox-Sánchez C, Díaz M, Claudia López C, Clovis-Monteiro Bramante C, Moldauer B, Ordinola-Zapata R. Micro-CT study of the root canal anatomy of maxillary canines. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(10):e1230–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Martins JNR, Gu Y, Marques D, Francisco H, Caramês J. Gender influence on the number of roots and root canal system configuration in human permanent teeth of a Portuguese subpopulation. Quintessence Int. 2018;49(2):103–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Martins JNR, Gu Y, Marques D, Francisco H, Caramês J. 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):1096–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Razumova S, Brago A, Khaskhanova L, Howijieh A, Barakat H, Manvelyan A. A cone-beam computed tomography scanning of the root canal system of permanent teeth among the Moscow population. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:2615746.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Pan JYY, Parolia A, Chuah SR, Bhatia S, Mutalik S, Pau A. Root canal morphology of permanent teeth in a Malaysian subpopulation using cone-beam computed tomography. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Mashyakhy M, Gambarini G. Root and root canal morphology differences between genders: A Comprehensive in-vivo CBCT Study in a Saudi Population. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2019;53(3):231–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nikkerdar N, Asnaashari M, Karimi A, Araghi S, Seifitabar S, Golshah A. Root and canal morphology of maxillary teeth in an Iranian subpopulation residing in western Iran using cone-beam computed tomography. Iran Endod J. 2020;15(1):31–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Ahmed HMA, Keleş A, Martins JNR, Dummer PMH. Tooth root and canal anatomy. In: Ahmed HMA, Dummer PMH, editors. Endodontic advances and evidence-based clinical guidelines. Cham: Wiley; 2022. p. 1–50.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Plotino G, Grande NM, Pecci R, Bedini R, Pameijer CH, Somma F. Three-dimensional imaging using microcomputed tomography for studying tooth Micromorphology. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(11):1555–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rhodes JS, Ford TR, Lynch JA, Liepins PJ, Curtis RV. Micro-computed tomography: a new tool for experimental endodontology. Int Endod J. 1999;32(3):165–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hess W. The anatomy of the root canals of the teeth of the permanent dentition: Classification. London: John Bale Sons and Danielsson Ltd.; 1925. p. 4–49.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Reis AG, Grazziotin-Soares R, Barletta FB, et al. Second canal in mesiobuccal root of maxillary molars is correlated with root third and patient age: a cone-beam computed tomographic study. J Endod. 2013;39(5):588–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee JH, Kim KD, Lee JK, Park W, Jeong JS, Lee Y, Gu Y, Chang SW, Son WJ, Lee WC, Baek SH, Bae KS, Kum KY. Mesiobuccal root canal anatomy of Korean maxillary first and second molars by cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2011;111(6):785–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was funded partially by the Swiss Society of Endodontology (SSE) and by the institutions of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Thomas Gerhard Wolf

  2. Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Thomas Gerhard Wolf, Theodora Rempapi, Richard Johannes Wierichs & Andrea Lisa Waber

Authors
  1. Thomas Gerhard Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theodora Rempapi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Johannes Wierichs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea Lisa Waber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.G.W., T.R., and A.L.W., contributed to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation, R.J.W. carried out the meta-analysis and contributed to interpretation. T.G.W., T.R., and A.L.W. drafted the manuscript; all authors read and critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave final approval and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Gerhard Wolf.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wolf, T.G., Rempapi, T., Wierichs, R.J. et al. Morphology and root canal configuration of maxillary canines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 24, 944 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04682-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04682-z

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us