Introduction. While there are many root morphology classification systems with their own distinct advantages, there are many shortcomings that come along with each system. Objectives. The aim of this review was to compare the various root and root canal morphology classifications, their advantages, limitations, and clinical and research implications. Data Sources and Selection. An extensive literature search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus to identify the published data on root and root canal classification systems published until 1 May 2020 using keywords, root canal classification system, classification systems for root canals, and root morphology. The related literature was reviewed and then summarized. Data Synthesis. Several studies have analysed and detailed root and root canal classifications and further added new subsystems, works of Weine et al. (1969) and Vertucci et al. (1974). Besides, Sert and Bayirli (2004) added supplementary types to Vertucci’s classification system. A new classification was most recently introduced by Ahmed et al. (2017) involving the use of codes for tooth numbering, number of roots, and canal configuration. Conclusions. Weine et al. classified only single-rooted teeth, without considering multirooted teeth and complex configurations. Vertucci’s classification included complex configurations, with Sert and Bayirli adding further complex supplemental types. Ahmed et al.’s classification simplifies classifying root and canal morphology while overcoming the limitations of several previous classification systems making it beneficial for implementation in dental schools.

No abstract

No abstract

This study aimed to conduct a compendious review of root canal morphology of “permanent mandibular teeth in different regions of Saudi Arabia” to obtain a large sample representing the total population. A detailed search through the databases Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The data were analyzed based on the following inclusion criteria: original full-length original articles that reported the variables of interest “(number of roots, number of canals, Vertucci’s classification system and C-shaped canals or mid-mesial canals)” of the mandibular teeth and conducted on Saudi subjects. The retrieved data were presented as frequencies and percentages. The results revealed that 56.6% of mandibular central incisors had one canal and Vertucci type I (56.6%), while 57.4% of the mandibular lateral incisors had one canal, with Vertucci types I and III most frequent. In mandibular canines, 91.8% had one canal and 8.2% had two canals. Most of the mandibular first premolars had one root (86.6%), while almost all mandibular second premolars (91.5%) had one canal, and 96.9% had Vertucci type I configuration. Among the mandibular first molars, three and four canals were prevalent in 58.7% and 40.6%, respectively. The majority of mesial roots had Vertucci type IV (60.6%), and most of distal roots had Vertucci type I (72.2%). Most of the mandibular second molars had three canals (87.3%) and showed Vertucci type IV (39.4%) canals for mesial roots and Vertucci type I (95.6%) for distal roots. The C-shaped canals were seen in 8% of first premolars and 9.8% of second molars. The middle mesial canal was found in 4.2% and 0.4% of first and second molars, respectively. This review could represent “the population of Saudi Arabia as the included samples were combined from different regions of the country.” Some variations were noticed within the same group of teeth from different regions. However, the overall results of combined samples were comparable to the other international studies.

No abstract