(1) Background: This study evaluated the spatial position and anatomical characteristics related to impacted third molars by map-reading strategy using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). (2) Methods: To determine the positioning of impacted third molars on CBCT it was used Winter's and Pell & Gregory's classifications, and the presence of external root resorption in mandibular second molars were based on Herman´s classification. The relationship between the mandibular third molar root apex and the mandibular canal was also analyzed. Fisher’s exact test was used to comparative statistical analysis. The significance level considered was 5%. (3) Results: The results showed that according to Winter's classification, 48.06 % of impacted teeth were in the mesioangular position. Using Pell & Gregory's classification, 43.22% of the impacted molars were in the position B and C, and 54.2% of the teeth were class II. 69.7% of teeth showed an absence of contact between the root apex and the mandibular canal and there was no occurrence of external root resorption in the distal of second molar in 88.7%. (4) Conclusions: The map-reading strategy using CBCT scans for anatomical positions and characteristics of impacted third molars increases professional confidence and establishes a parameter of quality and safety in the surgical procedure for the patient.

This study employed e-Vol DX cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) software to assess dentin remnants in the furcation area of mesial canals in mandibular molars during root canal retreatment (RCR). Four groups (Reciproc®, ProTaper Next®, Race Evo®, Protaper Gold®) were subjected to RCR, and CBCT images were captured before (T1) and after (T2) treatment. Measurements of remaining dentin thickness at 1 mm and 3 mm below the furcation were scrutinized. Results revealed no significant differences in mean thicknesses of mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual (ML) canals at 1 mm and 3 mm from the furcation pre-treatment (T1). Post-treatment (T2) showed analogous findings, with no significant differences in mean thicknesses. However, disparities surfaced between MB and ML canals at both distances, both before and after retreatment. In essence, the evaluated instruments exhibited safety in RCR, implying their appropriateness for use in critical areas of mandibular molars without inducing excessive wear. This study underscores the instruments' reliability in navigating danger zones during RCR, contributing valuable insights for dental practitioners handling complex root canal scenarios in mandibular molars.

Background/Objectives: To evaluate incidental findings in the mandible after the placement of dental implants using a new cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) software. Methods: The initial sample consisted of 2,872 CBCT scans of patients of both sexes. The parameters evaluated in this study were the location of the implants in the mandible, implant length, anatomical relationship of the implant with the mandibular canal, presence or absence of damage to the adjacent teeth, presence or absence of implant fractures, and presence or absence of bone support. Fisher's exact test was performed to compare the variables. The significance level was set at p = 0.05. Results: Out of 2,872 CBCT scans, 214 images of patients with an average age of 44.5 years were included. The most frequent location of the implants was the posterior region (93.5%), with 54% of the implants having a length between 9 and 14 mm. It was found that 92% of the implants were positioned above the mandibular canal. Three damage to adjacent teeth was observed, with no correlation with the implant positioning (p = 0.999). In 100% of cases of implants in the anterior region, there was bone support. Fracture was observed in 1.7% of implants with a length between 9- and 14-mm. Conclusions: The installation of implants in the mandible occurs more frequently in the posterior region, with a high presence of bone support and a low incidence of damage to adjacent teeth, anatomical structures, and fractures.