C-shaped Canals in Mandibular Second Molars: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A thorough grasp of possible anatomical variations is crucial for successful root canal treatment. An example of such a variation is the C-shaped canal morphology, primarily observed in mandibular second molars. This morphology is distinguished by a cross-sectional configuration resembling the letter “C.” Objective: This study aimed to assess the prevalence of C-shaped canals in permanent mandibular second molars among patients attending a tertiary care hospital in Nepal, utilizing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methodology: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences (KUSMS) - Dhulikhel Hospital, Nepal, from December 2020 to November 2021. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Committee of KUSMS prior to the study. CBCT scans of 150 mandibular second molars were evaluated by two endodontists. The study assessed tooth position (right or left side), prevalence of C-shaped canals, classification of C-shaped canal configurations at the orifice cross-sectional level, and the occurrence of C-shaped canals unilaterally or bilaterally. Data were analyzed using SPSS. Results: Out of the 150 teeth examined, 13 (8.7%) teeth exhibited a C-shaped root canal system. Among these 13 teeth, 7 (53.8%) teeth had an uninterrupted “C” configuration at the orifice level. Conclusions: This study found a notable prevalence of C-shaped root canals in mandibular second molars among the Nepalese population sampled.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".