OBJECTIVES: The upper molars generally have three roots; therefore, different combinations of fusion can occur, increasing the possibility of finding more complex root canal systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and characterization of fused roots in first and second maxillary molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in a Colombian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1274 teeth were evaluated, of which 534 were maxillary first molars and 740 were maxillary second molars. Axial sections were made at the cervical, middle, and apical levels to determine the prevalence of root fusion and the types of fusion. RESULTS: Overall, 43% of the molars (n = 551) presented some type of fused root. Root fusion was present in 23.4% of the maxillary first molars. The most frequent type of fused root was type 3 (distobuccal-palatal; DB-P) (58.9%). Root fusion was observed in 57.6% of the maxillary second molars, and the most prevalent type of fused root was type 6 (cone-shaped) (45.2%). Of the maxillary molars, 12.5% were classified as C-shaped. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, there was a high prevalence of fused roots in maxillary molars in the Colombian population, mainly in the maxillary second molars. In first molars, the most common type of fused root was type 3 (DB-P) and in second molars, the most common type was type 6 (cone-shaped). Additionally, molars with root fusion presented variation at different levels of the radicular portion, with implications for treatment quality.
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; Dental Pulp Cavity ; Fused Teeth ; Molar ; Prevalence ; Tooth

PURPOSE: Nosocomial infections account for one of the most serious complications in hospitalized patients around the world. Surgical site infections have significant economic implications, and surgical antisepsis plays an important role in such processes. METHODS: With prior approval by the Institutional Review Board and informed consent, 10 volunteers were randomly assigned to 3 protocols on hand antisepsis: protocol A (chloroxylenol 3%), protocol B (benzalkonium chloride at 1%), and protocol C (ethyl alcohol 61%, 1% chlorhexidine gluconate). Smears from both hands were cultured after each hand pro tocol (t0) and at the end of suturing (t1). Colony forming units were counted (CFUs on blood agar dishes) with digital counting software (Open CFU). Friedman test was used to compare the mean values among the groups, and a Bonferroni correction was made to determine the dissimilar group, with a P = 0.015. RESULTS: At t0 for protocol A the CFU count was 82.8 ± 1.3; protocol B was 9.7 ± 30; protocol C was 0.1 ± 0.3 (P < 0.001). At t1 for protocol A the CFU was 80.7 ± 89.4; protocol B was 7.5 ± 32; protocol C was 0.0 ± 0.0 (P < 0.001). No adverse events were present among the subjects. CONCLUSION: Ethyl alcohol at 61% with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate showed higher efficacy than the traditional washing antiseptics.
Agar ; Anti-Infective Agents, Local ; Antisepsis* ; Chlorhexidine ; Cross Infection ; Ethanol ; Ethics Committees, Research ; Hand* ; Humans ; Infection Control ; Informed Consent ; Stem Cells ; Surgical Wound Infection ; Volunteers