J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent > Volume 51(4); 2024 > Article
Ann and Song: Discrepancy in Root Apex Closure Timing of Maxillary First Molars: CBCT Study

Abstract

This study determined whether there are differences in the timing of apical closure in maxillary first molars among different roots and investigated the chronological age at which each root reaches a closed apex. This study included 155 boys and 158 girls. Radiographs of Korean children aged 7 - 11 were recorded. Using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, the apical diameters (AD) of the mesiobuccal root (MB), distobuccal root (DB), and palatal root (P) of the left and right maxillary first molars were measured using the INFINITT PACS software. We examined whether the mean AD was significantly smaller than 0.5 mm. The age at which the AD was significantly smaller than 0.5 mm was 9 for the MB and DB of the maxillary first molars (p < 0.0001) and 11 for the P (p < 0.0001). The results were consistent for both the left and right sides. We proposed 0.5 mm as an apical diameter criterion for an open apex. When the age of apical closure of the maxillary first molars, which is difficult to observe on panoramic and periapical radiographs, was investigated using CBCT, it was observed that the age of apical closure was 9 for the buccal roots and 11 for the palatal roots, indicating a difference of 2.

Introduction

Clinicians performing pulp treatment of maxillary first molars in pediatric patients often encounter a wider palatal root than expected. This occurs even when the buccal root apices are nearly closed on panoramic and periapical radiographs. In growing patients, multi-rooted teeth may have different developmental statuses at each root apex. The mesial roots of the mandibular first molars close earlier than the distal roots, and the buccal roots of the maxillary first molars close earlier than the palatal roots[1,2]. This variation in the developmental status of each root may lead to the selection of a different endodontic treatment method for each root; therefore, the practitioners need to determine the developmental status of the tooth before treatment[1,3]. To the best of our knowledge, there have been few studies on variations in apical closure timing.
Determining root development in maxillary first molars using panoramic and periapical radiographs is particularly challenging[4]. Numerous structures are superimposed on the root, making it difficult to determine whether the root is closed, and the palatal root is often observed inside the maxillary sinus[5,6]. This led to the exclusion of maxillary molars from studies measuring dental development[7,8]. Therefore, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) can be useful for studying root development in the maxillary first molars.
In the current study, we examined the CBCT scans of patients aged 7 - 11 years who visited the Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital to determine whether there is a difference in the timing of apical closure for each root of the maxillary first molar and to investigate the chronological age at which the apex of each tooth root closes.

Materials and Methods

The Wonkwang University Institutional Review Board (IRB) granted ethical approval (No: 202404-018).

1. Study participants

CBCT images of patients aged 7 - 11 years who visited the Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital between April 1, 2019, and November 30, 2023, were analyzed. A total of 313 pediatric patients (155 boys and 158 girls) were included in this study (Table 1).
The inclusion criteria were as follows:
1) Korean children who are systemically healthy and have no growth or developmental problems with erupted maxillary first molars
2) Maxillary 1st molar with a single mesiobuccal canal, distobuccal canal, and palatal canal
The exclusion criteria were as follows:
1) Poor-quality radiographs
2) Patients with eruption disorders, such as impacted or missing teeth
3) Maxillary 1st molar with caries involving the dentin
4) Maxillary 1st molar with pulp treatment

2. Study methods

CBCT images were obtained using Green21 (Vatech Co., Hwaseong, Korea). The images were evaluated using INFINITT PACS software (Infinitt Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea). The apical diameters (AD) of the mesiobuccal root (MB), distobuccal root (DB), and palatal root (P) of the upper right first molar (UR6) and upper left first molar (UL6) were measured in the CBCT axial view using a ruler equipped with INFINITT PACS software[9,10]. AD was measured as the minimum diameter, regardless of the mesiodistal or buccolingual direction (Fig. 1). The measurements were performed two times by a single evaluator, with a two-week interval between measurements. The final value was determined by averaging the two measurements.

3. Statistical analysis

SPSS Statistics version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to conduct the statistical analysis. In this study, skewness and kurtosis were examined according to sex and age to assess whether the data met the assumption of normality[11]. An independent sample t-test was performed to determine whether there was a significant difference in AD between the sexes. A paired-sample t-test was conducted to assess whether there was a significant difference between the left- and right-root AD. A one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was performed to determine whether there was a significant difference in AD among the roots. A one-sample t-test was conducted to identify the age at which the AD became significantly smaller than 0.5 mm. The intraclass correlation coefficients for the minimum root apex diameters measured two times by the same investigator were all greater than 0.90, indicating high reliability (p < 0.001).

Results

1. Differences in apical diameter between genders

At 7 years of age, there were significant differences in the MB and DB of UR6, DB and P of UL6 (p= 0.049, 0.032, 0.047, and 0.030, respectively). At 8 years of age, DB and P of UR6 and P of UL6 (p= 0.048, 0.007, and 0.027, respectively) were significantly different between the sexes. However, 9-year-olds did not show significant differences by sex, 10-year-olds only showed significant differences in the P of UL6 (p= 0.037), and 11-year-olds did not show significant differences by gender. All roots with significant differences had larger ADs in boys than girls (Table 2).

2. Differences in apical diameter between right and left sides

Significant differences exist only in DB (p < 0.001) and P (p= 0.003) among the 10-year-olds; no significant differences were observed between the left and right sides in the other age groups (Table 3).

3. Differences in apical diameter among roots

Before investigating whether there were differences in the timing of apex closure for each root, we tested whether there were significant differences in AD between the root types at each age.
In UR6, at ages 7 - 9, the AD of DB was larger than that of MB, and the AD of P was larger than that of MB and DB. At 8, 10, and 11 years of age, there was no significant difference in the AD between MB and DB, and the AD of P was significantly greater than that of MB and DB.
In UL6, at age 7, the AD of DB was greater than that of MB, and the AD of P was greater than that of MB and DB. At ages 8 - 11, there was no significant difference between the ADs of MB and DB, and the AD of P was significantly greater than that of MB and DB.
The difference between the MB and DB apical diameters of the maxillary first molars in patients aged 7 - 11 years was not consistent; however, the diameter of the P was larger than that of the MB or DB (Table 4).

4. Age at which the AD became significantly smaller than 0.5 mm

A one-sample t-test was conducted to identify the age at which the AD became significantly smaller than 0.5 mm. For each age group, a negative t-value with a significance probability of less than 0.05 was evaluated based on a test value of 0.5.
As a result, the ADs of the MB and DB on both sides were observed to be significantly smaller than 0.5 mm at the age of 9 years, and the ADs of the P on both sides were observed to be significantly smaller than 0.5 mm at the age of 11 years (Table 5).

Discussion

Before we can study the variation in the root development of each root in the molars, we should define the criteria for an open apex. The diameter of the apical constriction, which is the criterion for an open apex, is not agreed upon and varies widely from an ISO minimum size of 40 to 100, depending on the authors[12-20]. Moreover, it is unclear why each value was selected as an open apex criterion. One study noted the challenge posed by the absence of criteria for distinguishing between immature and mature root apices[21]. Another author emphasized the need for a precise definition of an open apex[22]. The absence of a clear definition and the lack of a rationale for it also presented challenges in our study. To provide clinical relevance, we first referenced the apical diameter that shows sufficient success rates in non-vital pulp treatment of open apex teeth. In teeth with a wide-open apex, regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) is commonly chosen[23]. In several studies on apical diameters appropriate for RET, the common finding was that RET was successful enough for diameters greater than 0.5 mm[24,25]. In addition, a recent study by Alghofaily et al.[19] has defined the apical closure criterion as 0.5 mm in diameter. For these reasons, we set the apical closure criterion at 0.5 mm.
When using the 0.5 mm criterion to investigate the age of apical closure in the maxillary first molars, differences between genders were observed. At age seven, sex differences were observed in four out of six roots, and at age eight, in three out of six roots. At age 9 years, there was no difference between the sexes; at age 10 years, only the P of UL6 showed a significant difference; and at age 11 years, there was no difference. For all roots with significant differences, males had larger root apex diameters than females, suggesting that root apex completion might occur earlier in girls. In one study, significant sex differences were observed in the root development of maxillary first molars[26]. Further investigation in a larger sample is needed to determine whether there are differences in the timing of root-tip closure between sexes.
A difference exists between the left and right root apical diameters in 10-year-old DB; however, when root development was categorized by 0.5 mm, both left and right DB roots were in the same developmental state with an open apex. Other studies have observed no differences between left and right tooth development[26-29].
Among the stages of tooth development, determining the age at the apical closure stage is particularly challenging. In most studies that investigated the association between tooth developmental stages and chronological age, the age of the apically closed stage could not be examined because, unsurprisingly, there is no upper age limit for this stage[6,29]. The chronological age of apical closure, the final stage of Demirjian tooth development, has been widely studied in third molars[30-33]. Most of these studies set the upper age limit for the apical closed stage at 26 years, but the reason for this upper age limit is not clear. One study stated that the age range of the patients had a large influence on the mean age, but they could not find a reason for this age range[33]. Therefore, other studies took a more indirect approach, examining the median of the developing stage at each age rather than the average age of the apical closure stage[26]. Similarly, in this study, we examined whether the mean apical diameter became smaller than 0.5 mm at each age. To determine the more precise age at which each root apex closes, regularly taking CBCT scans of the same individual would be useful. However, this approach poses significant issues due to high radiation exposure. Therefore, more refined measurement methods and alternative approaches to accurately assess age are necessary.
Kronfeld[34] found that the age of root completion in maxillary first molars is 9 - 10 years, which is still widely accepted. However, this study used two-dimensional radiographs and did not address the differences between the buccal and palatal roots. In another study examining the association between tooth development and chronological age, the minimum age at which the maxillary first molar root apex closed was 9 years. This study also used two-dimensional panoramic radiographs[26].
However, the use of two-dimensional radiographs for the observation of maxillary first molars has had limitations. The roots of the maxillary first molars are located close to the maxillary sinus floor and are prone to overlap, distortion, malposition, rotation, and crowding; therefore, maxillary teeth have been excluded from dental development studies, and studies have been conducted primarily in the mandible[5,35]. Moreover, maxillary teeth were less reliable than mandibular teeth in a study of root developmental stage assessment of permanent teeth, and the maxillary first molars were the least reliable of all permanent teeth, except the third molars, in the dental age estimation of Demirjian, Nolla, and Moorrees[4]. Owing to these limitations, using panoramic and periapical radiographs alone makes it difficult to observe the differences in the developmental stages of the buccal and palatal roots of the maxillary first molars. Therefore, unlike previous studies, this study used CBCT to show a 2-year difference in the timing of buccal and palatal root completion.
The apical diameter is important in non-vital pulp therapy for immature permanent teeth for several reasons. Forming an apical stop is challenging, which makes it difficult to achieve an apical seal[22,36]. Electronic apex locators and radiographs should be used in combination for working length determination (WLD)[22,37]. Additionally, if RET is required, the apical diameter needs to be at least 0.5 mm[24,25]. Moreover, the likelihood of irrigant extrusion increases in immature teeth with an open apex[38-40]. Clinicians unfamiliar with the pulp treatment of immature permanent teeth may not anticipate these considerations and may experience unexpected challenges. If the clinician sees only the buccal root in the panoramic view, determines that all the roots are closed, and plans to treat all the roots with conventional root canal therapy, the clinician may have to change the treatment plan abruptly after treatment has begun.
The limitations of this study include the fact that the study population was comprised of patients presenting with malocclusion; therefore, it may not be representative of the general population of children. In addition, CBCT studies lack precision compared with studies in adults. Studies in adults on the apical root morphology and diameter of maxillary first molars have been much more precise, using micro-CT and scanning electron microscopy observations of extracted teeth[41-43]. However, it is difficult to precisely study immature permanent teeth. The age range of immature permanent teeth is smaller than that of adults, and it is difficult to obtain specimens of immature permanent teeth extracted in the absence of apical lesions. Methods that are more precise than those used in the current study would require further investigation.
Another limitation is that this CBCT study used a threshold of 0.5 mm for apical closure but included periapical radiograph studies about RET as the basis for this threshold. We reviewed studies that compared linear measurements between periapical radiographs and CBCT images. In a study related to WLD measurements, there was no significant difference between the linear measurements on periapical radiographs and CBCT[44]. In a study comparing linear measurements from CBCT, periapical radiographs, and intrasurgery in maxillary molars with furcation defects, CBCT showed no significant difference from intrasurgical measurements in both height (vertical furcation bone loss) and width (furcation width) of furcation defects, whereas periapical radiographs showed no difference from intrasurgical measurements in width, but did show a height difference[45]. Further studies are needed to compare the linear measurements on periapical radiographs and CBCT axial views of the maxillary molars.

Conclusion

In this study, we suggested 0.5 mm as a criterion for the AD of the open apex. Using CBCT, we investigated the age at apical closure in the maxillary first molars. The age at apical closure of the buccal roots of the maxillary first molars was 9 years, and the age at the closure of the palatal roots was 11 years, indicating a difference of 2 years.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by Wonkwang University in 2024.

NOTES

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Funding information

This study was supported by Wonkwang University in 2024.

Fig 1.
Example measurement of apical diameter. Apical diameters were measured as the minimum diameter, regardless of the mesiodistal or buccolingual direction. (A) Axial view of the palatal apex of the maxillary first molar observed in cone-beam computed tomography, (B) Measurement of the apical diameter of the root.
jkapd-51-4-359f1.jpg
Table 1.
General characteristics of this study
Variables Categories n (%)
Sex Male 155 (49.5)
Female 158 (50.5)
Age 7 53 (16.9)
8 68 (21.7)
9 65 (20.8)
10 71 (22.7)
11 56 (17.9)
Total 313 (100.0)
Table 2.
Differences in the apical diameter between genders
Age Tooth type Canal Boys Girls Sex difference
Mean ± SD (mm) Mean ± SD (mm) Mean ± SE p
7 UR6 MB 0.57 ± 0.15 0.49 ± 0.14 0.08 ± 0.04 0.049*
DB 0.62 ± 0.15 0.53 ± 0.15 0.09 ± 0.04 0.032*
P 1.33 ± 0.37 1.19 ± 0.26 0.15 ± 0.09 0.115
UL6 MB 0.55 ± 0.12 0.52 ± 0.14 0.03 ± 0.04 0.428
DB 0.62 ± 0.13 0.54 ± 0.15 0.08 ± 0.04 0.047*
P 1.33 ± 0.35 1.15 ± 0.26 0.19 ± 0.08 0.030*
8 UR6 MB 0.48 ± 0.12 0.48 ± 0.15 0.00 ± 0.03 0.938
DB 0.53 ± 0.17 0.45 ± 0.15 0.08 ± 0.04 0.048*
P 1.11 ± 0.36 0.89 ± 0.29 0.22 ± 0.08 0.007*
UL6 MB 0.50 ± 0.15 0.45 ± 0.15 0.04 ± 0.04 0.270
DB 0.52 ± 0.17 0.46 ± 0.15 0.06 ± 0.04 0.111
P 1.09 ± 0.35 0.91 ± 0.29 0.18 ± 0.08 0.027*
9 UR6 MB 0.39 ± 0.11 0.36 ± 0.10 0.02 ± 0.03 0.358
DB 0.43 ± 0.13 0.39 ± 0.15 0.04 ± 0.03 0.219
P 0.76 ± 0.31 0.70 ± 0.28 0.06 ± 0.07 0.407
UL6 MB 0.40 ± 0.15 0.36 ± 0.13 0.04 ± 0.03 0.276
DB 0.40 ± 0.12 0.39 ± 0.13 0.01 ± 0.03 0.636
P 0.74 ± 0.30 0.66 ± 0.27 0.07 ± 0.07 0.307
10 UR6 MB 0.29 ± 0.10 0.26 ± 0.06 0.02 ± 0.02 0.197
DB 0.32 ± 0.11 0.28 ± 0.07 0.04 ± 0.02 0.082
P 0.56 ± 0.23 0.48 ± 0.12 0.08 ± 0.04 0.070
UL6 MB 0.30 ± 0.10 0.27 ± 0.06 0.02 ± 0.02 0.254
DB 0.28 ± 0.09 0.25 ± 0.07 0.03 ± 0.02 0.085
P 0.53 ± 0.19 0.45 ± 0.13 0.08 ± 0.04 0.037*
11 UR6 MB 0.27 ± 0.07 0.27 ± 0.05 0.00 ± 0.02 0.977
DB 0.30 ± 0.08 0.28 ± 0.07 0.01 ± 0.02 0.485
P 0.40 ± 0.11 0.38 ± 0.09 0.03 ± 0.03 0.300
UL6 MB 0.28 ± 0.07 0.27 ± 0.06 0.01 ± 0.02 0.526
DB 0.30 ± 0.09 0.28 ± 0.08 0.02 ± 0.02 0.389
P 0.40 ± 0.11 0.38 ± 0.09 0.02 ± 0.03 0.512

Independent sample t-test.

UR6: Upper Right First Molar; UL6: Upper Left First Molar; MB: Mesiobuccal Canal; DB: Distobuccal Canal; P: Palatal Canal.

* : statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Table 3.
Differences in the apical diameter between the left and right sides
Age Root UR6 (mm) UL6 (mm) Difference p
Mean ± SD (mm) Mean ± SD (mm) Mean ± SE
7 MB 0.52 ± 0.15 0.53 ± 0.13 -0.01 ± 0.02 0.457
DB 0.57 ± 0.15 0.57 ± 0.15 0.00 ± 0.02 0.976
P 1.25 ± 0.32 1.23 ± 0.31 0.03 ± 0.03 0.363
8 MB 0.48 ± 0.13 0.48 ± 0.15 0.00 ± 0.02 0.807
DB 0.49 ± 0.17 0.49 ± 0.16 0.00 ± 0.02 0.855
P 1.01 ± 0.35 1.00 ± 0.34 0.01 ± 0.02 0.711
9 MB 0.38 ± 0.11 0.38 ± 0.14 0.00 ± 0.01 0.827
DB 0.41 ± 0.14 0.40 ± 0.12 0.02 ± 0.01 0.135
P 0.73 ± 0.30 0.70 ± 0.29 0.03 ± 0.02 0.178
10 MB 0.28 ± 0.08 0.28 ± 0.08 -0.01 ± 0.01 0.357
DB 0.30 ± 0.09 0.27 ± 0.08 0.04 ± 0.01 < 0.0001*
P 0.52 ± 0.18 0.49 ± 0.17 0.03 ± 0.01 0.003*
11 MB 0.27 ± 0.06 0.27 ± 0.07 0.00 ± 0.01 0.836
DB 0.29 ± 0.08 0.29 ± 0.08 0.00 ± 0.01 0.941
P 0.39 ± 0.10 0.39 ± 0.10 0.00 ± 0.01 0.986

Paired sample t-test.

UR6: Upper Right First Molar; UL6: Upper Left First Molar; MB: Mesiobuccal Canal; DB: Distobuccal Canal; P: Palatal Canal.

* : statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Table 4.
Differences in the apical diameter across roots
Tooth type Age MB DB P p
Mean ± SD (mm) Mean ± SD (mm) Mean ± SD (mm)
UR6 7 0.52 ± 0.15a 0.57 ± 0.15b 1.25 ± 0.32c < 0.0001
8 0.48 ± 0.13a 0.49 ± 0.17a 1.01 ± 0.35b
9 0.38 ± 0.11a 0.41 ± 0.14b 0.73 ± 0.30c
10 0.28 ± 0.08a 0.30 ± 0.09a 0.52 ± 0.18b
11 0.27 ± 0.06a 0.29 ± 0.08a 0.39 ± 0.10b
UL6 7 0.53 ± 0.13a 0.57 ± 0.15b 1.23 ± 0.31c < 0.0001
8 0.48 ± 0.15a 0.49 ± 0.16a 1.00 ± 0.34b
9 0.38 ± 0.14a 0.40 ± 0.12a 0.70 ± 0.29b
10 0.28 ± 0.08a 0.27 ± 0.08a 0.49 ± 0.17 b
11 0.27 ± 0.07a 0.29 ± 0.08a 0.39 ± 0.10b

One-way ANOVA.

UR6: Upper Right First Molar; UL6: Upper Left First Molar; MB: Mesiobuccal Canal; DB: Distobuccal Canal; P: Palatal Canal.

Different superscript letters indicate significant differences by the Bonferroni test for One-way ANOVA (p < 0.05).

Table 5.
Difference in apical size from 0.5
Tooth type Canal Age Mean ± SD (mm) t p
UR6 MB 7 0.52 ± 0.15 1.01 0.317
8 0.48 ± 0.13 -1.19 0.239
9 0.38 ± 0.11 -9.31 < 0.0001*
10 0.28 ± 0.08 -23.36 < 0.0001*
11 0.27 ± 0.06 -28.76 < 0.0001*
DB 7 0.57 ± 0.15 3.50 0.001
8 0.49 ± 0.17 -0.37 0.712
9 0.41 ± 0.14 -5.10 < 0.0001*
10 0.30 ± 0.09 -17.58 < 0.0001*
11 0.29 ± 0.08 -20.90 < 0.0001*
P 7 1.25 ± 0.32 17.13 < 0.0001
8 1.01 ± 0.35 12.10 < 0.0001
9 0.73 ± 0.30 6.19 < 0.0001
10 0.52 ± 0.18 0.90 0.371
11 0.39 ± 0.10 -8.33 < 0.0001*
UL6 MB 7 0.53 ± 0.13 1.85 0.070
8 0.48 ± 0.15 -1.25 0.216
9 0.38 ± 0.14 -7.06 < 0.0001*
10 0.28 ± 0.08 -21.98 < 0.0001*
11 0.27 ± 0.07 -25.95 < 0.0001*
DB 7 0.57 ± 0.15 3.58 0.001
8 0.49 ± 0.16 -0.52 0.601
9 0.40 ± 0.12 -6.69 < 0.0001*
10 0.27 ± 0.08 -24.78 < 0.0001*
11 0.29 ± 0.08 -19.42 < 0.0001*
P 7 1.23 ± 0.31 16.97 < 0.0001
8 1.00 ± 0.34 12.30 < 0.0001
9 0.70 ± 0.29 5.64 < 0.0001
10 0.49 ± 0.17 -0.73 0.466
11 0.39 ± 0.10 -8.57 < 0.0001*

One sample t-test (test value = 0.5).

UR6: Upper Right First Molar; UL6: Upper Left First Molar; MB: Mesiobuccal Canal; DB: Distobuccal Canal; P: Palatal Canal.

* : significantly smaller than 0.5 (t < 0 and p < 0.05).

References

1. Cehreli ZC, Erbas Unverdi G, Eymirli P, Mergen I, Arslan E, Esenturk G : Combined conventional and regenerative treatment in molars with coexistent closed and open apices: A case series. Aust Endod J, 48:197-201, 2022.
crossref pmid pdf
2. Moorrees CF, Fanning EA, Hunt Jr EE : Age variation of formation stages for ten permanent teeth. J Dent Res, 42:1490-1502, 1963.
crossref pmid pdf
3. Terauchi Y, Bakland LK, Bogen G : Combined Root Canal Therapies in Multirooted Teeth with Pulpal Disease. J Endod, 47:44-51, 2021.
crossref pmid
4. Abdul Rahim AH, Davies JA, Liversidge HM : Reliability and limitations of permanent tooth staging techniques. Forensic Sci Int, 346:111654, 2023.
crossref pmid
5. Tian XM, Qian L, Xin XZ, Wei B, Gong Y : An Analysis of the Proximity of Maxillary Posterior Teeth to the Maxillary Sinus Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography. J Endod, 42:371-377, 2016.
crossref pmid
6. Cavrić J, Vodanović M, Marušić A, Galić I : Time of mineralization of permanent teeth in children and adolescents in Gaborone, Botswana. Ann Anat, 203:24-32, 2016.
crossref pmid
7. Kang DG, Kim TW, Kim YJ, Nam SH, Kim HJ : Relationship between dental calcification stages and skeletal maturity indicators in Korean individual. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 35:243-258, 2008.
8. Kim SJ, Song JS, Kim IH, Kim SO, Choi HJ : Correlation between dental and skeletal maturity in Korean children. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 48:255-268, 2021.
crossref
9. Nevins AJ, Cymerman JJ : Revitalization of open apex teeth with apical periodontitis using a collagen-hydroxyapatite scaffold. J Endod, 41:966-973, 2015.
crossref pmid
10. Lin J, Zeng Q, Wei X, Zhao W, Cui M, Gu J, Lu J, Yang M, Ling J : Regenerative Endodontics Versus Apexification in Immature Permanent Teeth with Apical Periodontitis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study. J Endod, 43:1821-1827, 2017.
crossref pmid
11. Curran PJ, West SG, Finch JF : The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Meth, 1:16-29, 1996.
crossref
12. Mente J, Hage N, Pfefferle T, Koch MJ, Dreyhaupt J, Staehle HJ, Friedman S : Mineral trioxide aggregate apical plugs in teeth with open apical foramina: a retrospective analysis of treatment outcome. J Endod, 35:1354-1358, 2009.
crossref pmid
13. Van Hassel Hassel HJ, Natkin E : Induction of root end closure. ASDC J Dent Child, 37:57-59, 1970.
pmid
14. Sarris S, Tahmassebi JF, Duggal MS, Cross IA : A clinical evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate for rootend closure of non-vital immature permanent incisors in children-a pilot study. Dent Traumatol, 24:79-85, 2008.
crossref pmid
15. ElAyouti A, Dima E, Löst C : A tactile method for canal length determination in teeth with open apices. Int Endod J, 42:1090-1095, 2009.
crossref pmid
16. Friend LA : The root treatment of teeth with open apices. Proc R Soc Med, 59:1035-1036, 1966.
pmid pmc
17. Moore A, Howley MF, O’Connell AC : Treatment of open apex teeth using two types of white mineral trioxide aggregate after initial dressing with calcium hydroxide in children. Dent Traumatol, 27:166-173, 2011.
crossref pmid
18. Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM : Essentials of traumatic injuries to the teeth: a step-by-step treatment guide, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Newyork, 2-34, 2010.
19. Alghofaily M, Torabinejad M, Nosrat A : Regenerative Endodontic Treatment Using Periapical Blood or Circulating Blood as Scaffold: A Volumetric Analysis. J Endod, 48:625-631, 2022.
crossref pmid
20. American Association of Endodontists : AAE Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment Form and Guidelines. Available from URL: https://www.aae.org/specialty/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/01/CaseDifficultyAssessmentFormFINAL2022.pdf (Accessed on May 3, 2024)
21. Talati A, Disfani R, Afshar A, Fallah Rastegar A : Finite element evaluation of stress distribution in mature and immature teeth. Iran Endod J, 2:47-53, 2007.
pmid pmc
22. Kim YJ, Chandler NP : Determination of working length for teeth with wide or immature apices: a review. Int Endod J, 46:483-491, 2013.
crossref pmid
23. Panda P, Mishra L, Govind S, Panda S, Lapinska B : Clinical Outcome and Comparison of Regenerative and Apexification Intervention in Young Immature Necrotic Teeth-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med, 11:3909, 2022.
crossref pmid pmc
24. Fang Y, Wang X, Zhu J, Su C, Yang Y, Meng L : Influence of Apical Diameter on the Outcome of Regenerative Endodontic Treatment in Teeth with Pulp Necrosis: A Review. J Endod, 44:414-431, 2018.
crossref pmid
25. Estefan BS, El Batouty KM, Nagy MM, Diogenes A : Influence of Age and Apical Diameter on the Success of Endodontic Regeneration Procedures. J Endod, 42:1620-1625, 2016.
crossref pmid
26. Kuremoto K, Okawa R, Matayoshi S, Kokomoto K, Nakano K : Estimation of dental age based on the developmental stages of permanent teeth in Japanese children and adolescents. Sci Rep, 12:3345, 2022.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
27. Nolla CM : The development of permanent teeth. J Dent Child, 27:254-266, 1960.
28. Feijóo G, Barbería E, De Nova J, Prieto JL : Permanent teeth development in a Spanish sample. Forensic Sci Int, 214:213.E211-E216, 2012.
29. Lee SE, Lee SH, Lee JY, Park HK, Kim YK : Age estimation of Korean children based on dental maturity. Forensic Sci Int, 178:125-131, 2008.
crossref pmid
30. Song MS, Kang CM, Song JS, Choi HJ, Kim SO : Correlation of Left Mandibular Third Molar Development and Chronological Age. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 49:35-44, 2022.
crossref
31. Zandi M, Shokri A, Malekzadeh H, Amini P, Shafiey P : Evaluation of third molar development and its relation to chronological age: a panoramic radiographic study. Oral Maxillofac Surg, 19:183-189, 2015.
crossref pmid pdf
32. Sisman Y, Uysal T, Yagmur F, Ramoglu SI : Third-molar development in relation to chronologic age in Turkish children and young adults. Angle Orthod, 77:1040-1045, 2007.
crossref pmid pdf
33. Lee SH, Lee JY, Park HK, Kim YK : Development of third molars in Korean juveniles and adolescents. Forensic Sci Int, 188:107-111, 2009.
crossref pmid
34. Kronfeld R : Development and calcification of the human deciduous and permanent dentition. Bur, 15:18-25, 1935.
35. Fry RR, Patidar DC, Goyal S, Malhotra A : Proximity of maxillary posterior teeth roots to maxillary sinus and adjacent structures using Denta scan®. Indian J Dent, 7:126-130, 2016.
crossref pmid pmc
36. Cehreli ZC, Sara S, Uysal S, Turgut MD : MTA apical plugs in the treatment of traumatized immature teeth with large periapical lesions. Dent Traumatol, 27:59-62, 2011.
crossref pmid
37. Herrera M, Ábalos C, Lucena C, Jiménez-Planas A, Llamas R : Critical diameter of apical foramen and of file size using the Root ZX apex locator: an in vitro study. J Endod, 37:1306-1309, 2011.
crossref pmid
38. Dos Reis S, Cruz VM, Hungaro Duarte MA, da Silveira Bueno CE, Vivan RR, Pelegrine RA, Bruno KF, Kato AS : Volumetric Analysis of Irrigant Extrusion in Immature Teeth after Different Final Agitation Techniques. J Endod, 46:682-687, 2020.
crossref pmid
39. Claudino Ribeiro JR, da Silveira Bueno CE, Bruno KF, Dos Reis S, de Martin AS, Fontana CE, Pelegrine RA : Impact of Sodium Hypochlorite on Organic Tissue Dissolution in the Periapical Region of Immature Permanent Teeth: An Ex Vivo Study. J Endod, 48:555-560, 2022.
crossref pmid
40. Sharma R, Kumar V, Logani A, Chawla A, Sharma S, Koli B : Effect of Gravity on Periapical Extrusion of Irrigating Solution With Different Irrigation Protocols in Immature Anterior Teeth. 5:150-154, 2020.
crossref
41. ElAyouti A, Hülber JM, Judenhofer MS, Connert T, Mannheim JG, Löst C, Pichler BJ, von Ohle C : Apical constriction: location and dimensions in molars-a micro-computed tomography study. J Endod, 40:1095-1099, 2014.
crossref pmid
42. Wolf TG, Paqué F, Sven Patyna MS, Willershausen B, Briseño-Marroquín B : Three-dimensional analysis of the physiological foramen geometry of maxillary and mandibular molars by means of micro-CT. Int J Oral Sci, 9:151-157, 2017.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
43. 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, 77:172-176, 1994.
crossref pmid
44. de Morais AL, de Alencar AH, Estrela CR, Decurcio DA, Estrela C : Working Length Determination Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Periapical Radiography and Electronic Apex Locator in Teeth with Apical Periodontitis: A Clinical Study. Iran Endod J, 11:164-168, 2016.
pmid pmc
45. Yusof NAM, Noor E, Reduwan NH, Yusof MY : Diagnostic accuracy of periapical radiograph, cone beam computed tomography, and intrasurgical linear measurement techniques for assessing furcation defects: a longitudinal randomised controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig, 25:923-932, 2021.
crossref pmid pdf


ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
Seoul National University, Dental Hospital, B1-166 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea
Tel: +82-70-4145-8875    Fax: +82-2-745-8875    E-mail: info@kapd.org                

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next