Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Case Reports
. 2020 Dec;5(3):159-176.
doi: 10.14744/eej.2020.88942.

Preferred Reporting Items for Root and Canal Anatomy in the Human Dentition (PROUD 2020) - A Systematic Review and a Proposal for a Standardized Protocol

Hany Mohamed Aly Ahmed  1 , Giampiero Rossi-Fedele  2
Affiliations
Case Reports

Preferred Reporting Items for Root and Canal Anatomy in the Human Dentition (PROUD 2020) - A Systematic Review and a Proposal for a Standardized Protocol

Hany Mohamed Aly Ahmed et al. Eur Endod J. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: Consistent reporting of publications in a given topic is essential. This systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate the reporting items in previous publications related to root canal anatomy in major Endodontic journals.

Methods: A systematic review was undertaken following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed by 2 independent reviewers using a customized search strategy in major Endodontic journals through Scopus until November 2019. Studies investigating root and canal anatomy were included. The selected publications were divided into 7 categories according to the study design: micro-computed tomography (microCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) experimental studies (extracted teeth), CBCT and 2D clinical studies, CBCT and 2D case reports in addition to others (i.e. staining and clearing method and root sectioning). The selected studies were evaluated according to three domains: 1) Criteria for study sample selection; 2) Criteria for methodological procedures and 3) Criteria for detection and evaluation.

Results: After the removal of duplicated and irrelevant papers, 137 articles were included. Results showed that microCT studies reported accurately the tooth type, number of teeth, classifications used, qualitative and/or quantitative analysis (if required) and the evaluation process. However, sample size calculation, calibration, and reproducibility were not reported in the majority of microCT studies. CBCT clinical studies presented information for the type of study, inclusion/exclusion criteria, number of patients, tooth type, and number of teeth. However, the majority did not report sample size calculation and calibration of examiners. Radiographic exposure descriptions and classifications used were not reported adequately in CBCT and 2D case reports. Sample size calculation, calibration and reproducibility were not reported in staining and clearing method.

Conclusion: Despite accurate presentation of certain items, there is considerable inconsistent reporting of root and canal morphology regardless of the type of study and experimental procedure used. The PROUD checklist protocol presented in this systematic review aims to provide an accurate description of root canal anatomy in experimental, clinical, and case report publications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: The authors deny any conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowshart of this systematic review
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bar chart for reporting items related to microCT studies
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bar chart for reporting items related to CBCT experimental studies
Figure 4
Figure 4
Bar chart for reporting items related to CBCT clinical studies
Figure 5
Figure 5
Bar chart for reporting items related to 2D clinical studies
Figure 6
Figure 6
Bar chart for reporting items related to classifications used staining and clearing *Weine’s classification (107) is included in this chart (sectioning in extracted teeth)
Figure 7
Figure 7
Bar chart for reporting items related to CBCT case reports
Figure 8
Figure 8
Bar chart for reporting items related to 2D case reports
Figure 9
Figure 9
An example for reporting anatomy in a microCT study. PGG: Palato-gingival groove. MicroCT images from Root canal anatomy project lead by HMA Ahmed and NS Mohamad (2020). PGG - Palato-gingival groove, ICC - Intercanal communication
Figure 10
Figure 10
An example for reporting anatomy in an experimental CBCT study (extracted teeth)
Figure 11
Figure 11
An example for reporting anatomy in a clinical CBCT study - X: Excluded because of root canal filling
Figure 12
Figure 12
An example for reporting anatomy in a clinical study
Figure 13
Figure 13
An example for reporting anatomy in a case report. Number of patients (and teeth included) should be provided in case series
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Vertucci F. Root canal morphology and its relationship to endodontic procedures. Endod Topics. 2005;10(1):3–29.
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. Neelakantan P, Subbarao C, Subbarao CV, Ravindranath M. Root and canal morphology of mandibular second molars in an Indian population. J Endod. 2010;36(8):1319–22. - PubMed
    1. Versiani MA, Ordinola-Zapata R, Keleş A, Alcin H, Bramante CM, Pécora JD, et al. Middle mesial canals in mandibular first molars:A micro-CT study in different populations. Arch Oral Biol. 2016;61:130–7. - PubMed
    1. Morfis A, Sylaras SN, Georgopoulou M, Kernani M, Prountzos F. Study of the apices of human permanent teeth with the use of a scanning electron microscope. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994;77(2):172–6. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources