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

Abstract

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.