Restorative and prosthetic considerations usually necessitates endodontic treatment of third molars in order to retain them as a functional component of the dental arch. However, the anatomy of third molars has been described as unpredictable. To date, there has been little published work on root and canal morphology of third molars, with an adequate sample size. The aim of this study was to investigate root and canal morphology of third molars. Maxillary and mandibular third molars were gathered from dental surgeries within north Jordan. Following access cavity preparation, pulp tissue was removed and root canals stained. Teeth were subject to examination after rendering them clear by immersion in methyl salicylate, and the following features evaluated: (1) number of roots; (2) number and type of root canals; (3) number and position of lateral canals; and (4) presence of inter-canal communications. Out of the examined 592 maxillary third molars, 69.9% had three roots, 10.81% had one, 9.79% had two, 9.12% had four, and 0.34% had five roots. Most had three (52.36%) and four canals (28.2%) with less frequency of two (11.48%), one (5.91%) and five canals (2.03%). Of the 639 mandibular third molars, 89.76% had two roots, 7.35% had three, 2.5% had one, and 0.47% had four roots. Most had three (55.71%) and two canals (29.42%) with less frequency of four (13.61%), one (1.09%) and five canals (0.15%). The majority of maxillary third molars had 3 roots, while the majority of mandibular third molars had two. Overall, nearly half of the maxillary and mandibular third molars had three canals. New canal configurations, not previously described in the literature nor included in Vertucci’s classifications, were identified in both maxillary and mandibular third molars.

This study aimed to evaluate the periapical status (PAS) of restored non-root-filled (RNRF) teeth amongst a group of patients attending dental teaching clinics at Jordan University of Science & Technology. It also aimed to assess the association of type and quality of coronal restorations and periapical disease. This was a cross-sectional study. To be included, participants needed to have at least 1 non-root-filled tooth restored with either direct or indirect restoration. A sample of 491 participants was examined. Clinical examination and digital periapical radiographs were used to record material used and assess the quality of the restorations. Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis were used to analyse the association between PAS and gender, age, restoration material/type, and quality. Overall, 26.3% of the participants were diagnosed with apical periodontitis (AP) on 1 or more of the examined teeth. No significant differences in the prevalence of AP were observed when comparing amalgam to composite or indirect restorations (P = .386). Furthermore, no association was reported between AP and gender or age, while a significant association was observed with the restoration's quality (P < .001). The high prevalence of AP in the examined sample is of clinical concern and suggests that more attention should be directed towards dental health awareness in Jordan. Teeth restored with inadequate restorations were twice as likely to have AP.