Published online: 2019-09-19

THIEME
Review Article 303

Morphological Differences between the First

and Second Permanent Upper Molars
Luis Eduardo Genaro1 Gabriely Ferreira1 Marcelo Brito Conte1 Marcela de Almeida Gonçalves1
Ticiana Sidorenko Oliveira Capote1

1 Department of Morphology, School of Dentistry, Universidade Address for correspondence Ticiana Sidorenko Oliveira Capote, PhD,
Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, São Paulo, SP, Brazil Departamento de Morfologia, Faculdade de Odontologia,
Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rua Humaitá, 1680, Araraquara,
J Morphol Sci 2019;36:303–308. São Paulo, SP, 14801-903, Brazil (e-mail: ticiana@[Link]).

Abstract The dental elements present similar and specific anatomical features, depending on
the functions they have in the oral cavity. The permanent molars are the most complex
structures, mainly the occlusal face, due to their function of food grinding. The aim of
the present article is to present the upper first and second molars morphology,
emphasizing the similarities and differences between them. Besides, the upper first
and second molars of the collection of the Department of Morphology of Universidade
Estadual de Paulista (UNESP), School of Dentistry, Araraquara, were evaluated regard-
ing the presence of the oblique ridge, frequency and classification of the molar
tubercle, and the crown morphology (upper second molars). In the 372 evaluated
upper first molars, the molar tubercle was absent in most of the teeth. When present,
the molar tubercle belonged to the mesiolingual cusp; 8.9% were classified as type I;
Keywords 9.1% as type II; and 9.4% as type III. The oblique ridge was present in all upper first
► anatomy and molars. The morphology of 401 upper second molars was also evaluated; 64.83% were
anthropology tetracuspid; 35.16% tricuspid; and 17.02% presented compression morphology. In 100
► education in tricuspid teeth, 50% presented oblique ridge, with it being prominent in 30%. No
morphology upper second molars presented molar tubercle. Although there are similarities
► macroscopic human between the upper first and second molars, we must always be aware of the features
anatomy that differ between them, so their functionality can be restored.

Introduction the largest one, followed by the mesiobuccal, the distobuccal,

and the distolingual. The two lingual cusps are more promi-
The dental elements have similar and specific anatomical nent than the buccal ones. Therefore, they are the first to
features depending on the functions they have in the oral occlude with the antagonist tooth.1,9,10
cavity. Among the structures of the dental arch, the perma- On the mesiolingual cusp, the Carabelli’s tubercle may be
nent molars are the most complex ones, mainly the occlusal observed;4,5,10–12 it is present in up to 80% of the cases13 and
face, due to their function of food grinding.1 can be observed bilaterally.11,12 It can be referred to as
Among the upper molars, the upper first molar is the tooth Carabelli’s cusp, fifth lobe, fifth cusp, supplemental cusp,
with the least anatomic variations,2 but when compared with accessory cusp, and mesiolingual prominence.12,14 In the
the other teeth, its morphology is the most complex.3 Its crown current Nomina Anatomica, this structure is called molar
may be like a rectangle, square, or rhomboid.4–7 Due to the tubercle, due to the substitution of the eponymous.15
large dental crown, it is supported by three dental roots.8 The The second permanent molar is the second tooth that is
upper first molar presents four cusps: the mesiolingual is most affected by dental anomalies considering the upper

received DOI [Link] Copyright © 2019 by Thieme Revinter

April 24, 2019 10.1055/s-0039-1695756. Publicações Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
accepted ISSN 2177-0298.
June 17, 2019
304 Morphological Differences between Upper Molars Genaro et al.

molars. Álvares & Freitas2 analyzed the frequency of dental crown morphology (tetracuspid, tricuspid or compressed) and
fusion and found that the most affected teeth are deciduous the molar tubercle frequency were evaluated.
incisors and cuspid, permanent incisors, permanent upper
third and second molars.
Results and Discussion
Known as the six-years-old molar, the upper first permanent
molar presents the greatest volume among the upper molars. It The calcification of the permanent first upper molar begins
has four cusps and three roots, and one cusp is not supported by at birth and its eruption occurs around the age of 6. The end
a root of its own.4 The upper second permanent molar is known of calcification occurs between the ages of 9 and 10.1 The
as the “teenager tooth” due to the age of eruption, which occurs dimensions are larger than those of the upper second molar
between the ages of 13 and 15. The upper second molar and may range according to gender.1
presents anatomic variations due to the number of cusps, The permanent upper molars have a larger buccolingual
and it may present variations in its measurements.4,5,9 dimension compared with the mesiodistal one.1,5,16 According
When compared with the upper first molar, a modifica- to Della Serra & Ferreira,8 the buccolingual dimension of the
tion in the contour of the occlusal surface is observed upper first molar is  12 mm, and the mesiodistal dimension
because the distolingual cusp is much smaller in is  10 mm.
the second molar, and the lingual margin of this surface is According to Della Serra,4 the total length of the perma-
smaller than the buccal margin.4,5,9 Due to the number of nent upper first molar can range from 20.80 mm to 25.00
cusps, the morphology of the occlusal surface is variable, mm. According to Picosse,1 the total length mean of those
being tetracuspid, tricuspid, or presenting a compression teeth in women was 21.41 mm, and in male it was 20.99 mm.
morphology.1,4,5 And the presence of tubercles in the Regarding the crown length of the upper first molar, Picosse1
upper second and third molars is not so common.9 reported a dimension of 8.44 mm in men and 7.29 mm in
When searching in scientific bases, like SciELO, Scopus, women; a buccolingual dimension of 11.83 mm in men and
Bireme, Google Scholar and PubMed, through the last 5 years, 11.70 in women; and a mesiodistal dimension of 11.30 mm
using the following keywords “dental anatomy,” “upper molar in men and 10.80 in women. Similar values were described
anatomy,” “molar anatomy,” “molars,” “upper molars,” “molar by Della Serra,4 who reported a crown length of 8.44 mm; a
morphology,” we verified that thousands of papers were buccolingual dimension ranging from 11.0 to 12.0 mm; and a
related to them. However, only six papers were related to mesiodistal dimension ranging from 10.0 to 11.0 mm.
the crown morphology of molars. Most of the papers were The upper first molars always present a structure connect-
related to endodontics and internal anatomy of molars. ing the mesiolingual and distobuccal cusps, and it is called
Therefore, the number of studies related to the upper molars oblique ridge or enamel bridge, on the occlusal surface.
crown anatomy is rare. The available papers, the dental According to Della Serra,4 the oblique ridge is always found
anatomy books and the analysis provide valuable informa- in the occlusal surface of the upper first molars, and it may be
tion about the normal morphology and anatomic variations continuous or interruped by a supplemental groove (20.4%).
present in the upper molars. We disagree with Della Serra4 regarding the type of groove that
The main objective of the present study is to present a interrupts the oblique ridge. We consider it to be a develop-
review of the literature on the morphology of the dental crown ment groove. Madeira & Rizzolo5 reported that the oblique
of the first and second permanent maxillary molars, and to ridge is always present in the permanent upper first molar, and
perform an evaluation of upper first molars (regarding the the groove only deepens the central part without interrupting
presence of the oblique ridge, frequency and classification of it, and they cited that, in fact, it is the oblique ridge that
the molar tubercle) and of upper second molars (regarding the interrupts the groove. All the 372 permanent upper first
dental crown morphology). molars evaluated in the present study presented the oblique
ridge on the occlusal surface, connecting the mesiolingual and
distobuccal cusps.
Material and Methods
The developmental grooves have an H-shaped arrangement,
For the current study, a literature review was conducted after which separates the four cusps1 (►Fig. 1). In the direction of the
searching papers in scientific bases like SciELO, Scopus, mesial occlusal pit to the central occlusal pit, there is a groove
Bireme, Google Scholar, PubMed, and dental anatomy books. separating the mesial cusps. The buccal cusps are separated by a
Evaluations were made by direct observation, without any groove that connects the buccal surface to the central occlusal
instrument, in 372 permanent upper first molars and 401 pit. The lingual cusps are separated by a curved groove that
permanent upper second molars, belonging to the didactic connects the lingual surface to the distal occlusal pit.1,5,9
collection of the Discipline of Anatomy of the Department of These three grooves may be connected to each other by
Morphology of the School of Dentistry at Universidade the presence of an inconstant groove that, starting from the
Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Araraquara, SP, Brazil. central pit, will find the distolingual groove near the distal
The frequency and classification of the upper molars were pit. This groove, when present, creates with the other grooves
made according to Sousa et al.7 a shape that resembles an inclined “H.”1
In the permanent upper first molar, the presence of the The permanent upper first molar presents an exception
oblique ridge, frequency and classification of the molar tuber- compared with the other teeth. The buccal surface is smaller
cle were evaluated. In the permanent upper second molar, the than the lingual one.4,5,9,10 This feature makes the proximal

Journal of Morphological Sciences Vol. 36 No. 4/2019

 Morphological Differences between Upper Molars Genaro et al. 305

Fig. 1 Permanent upper first molars. (A) Absence of molar tubercle. (B) Type I molar tubercle (depression). (C) Type II molar tubercle (small
prominence). (D) Type III molar tubercle (big prominence).

surfaces slightly converge to the buccal surface, and not to the straight to the occlusal area.1,10 The distal surface has the same
lingual one, as occurs with the other teeth.5 According to shape; however, with smaller dimensions and more convex
Della Serra,4 the lingual surface shows evident convexity and shape if compared with the mesial one.1,5,10
presents a dimension of  10.2 mm. A frequency of 61.1% of the molar tubercle with variations in
The buccal surface presents a trapezium shape, convex in size and shape was reported,4 and, according to the author, it
all directions.4 It is bordered by a cervical ridge, formed by may be considered a fifth cusp. This tubercle may also be
two curved segments with concavity facing the root. The present in other molars, such as in the upper second molars.
proximal ridges converge to the cervical area.1,4,10,13 The Della Serra & Ferreira8 observed a frequency of 1.7% in
buccal surface presents the buccal groove, which is the the second and third upper molars. However, according to
continuity to the buccal-occlusal groove. The buccal groove Della Serra,4 it is present in the second molar if it also appears in
begins in the occlusal surface, and it ends in the middle third the first molar, being morphologically similar. Thus, this struc-
of the buccal surface, just on the buccal pit, a very discrete ture alone cannot be distinctive between the upper molars.4,14
triangle-shaped depression.1,4 The molar tubercle can be classified according to its ana-
As on any other tooth, the mesial surface is larger and flatter tomical shape: like a cuspid (5.3%), like a tubercle (2.1%), like a
than the distal one. The width of the mesial surface of the first groove (30.1%), and like a pit (23.6%).4 Another classification
upper molar on the dental cervix is about 10 mm, and on the was reported by Sousa et al.7 It may be a depression (Type I), a
occlusal third it is about 11.7 mm. The height of the mesial small prominence (Type II), or a big prominence (Type III).7
surface is about 7.5 mm.4 There is a convergence of the buccal According to Woelfel & Scheid,9 when analyzing 1,558 first
and lingual ridges to the occlusal ridge; the lingual ridge is molars, they found a large Carabelli cusp in 19%, a small
convex from the dental cervix to the occlusal surface, and the Carabelli cusp in 27.5%, a slight depression in 24%, and absence
buccal ridge is convex on the cervical area and it remains in 29.5%. The authors concluded that 70.5% of the teeth had a

Journal of Morphological Sciences Vol. 36 No. 4/2019

306 Morphological Differences between Upper Molars Genaro et al.

Table 1 Frequency and classification (according to Sousa et al7) of

the molar tubercle of permanent upper first molars in the didactic
collection of the discipline of anatomy of the department of
morphology of the School of Dentistry of Universidade Estadual
Paulista (UNESP), Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil

Classification Frequency (%)

Absent 270 (72.6)
Type I 33 (8.9)
Type II 34 (9.1)
Type III 35 (9.4)
Total 372 (100.0)

molar tubercle. We found a different frequency when the 372

upper first molars were analyzed (►Table 1; ►Fig. 1). We
observed the absence of the molar tubercle in 270 teeth
(72.6%) (►Fig. 1). However, its presence was found in 102
teeth (27.4%), and it was always present in the mesiolingual
cusp, as demonstrated by the study of Meredith & Hixon.11
Ferreira et al15 evaluated 192 permanent upper first molars in
126 Brazilian individuals, and observed the absence of the
Fig. 2 Permanent upper second molar. Tetracuspid morphology.
molar tubercle in 92 teeth (47.91%).
In the present study, the expression of the molar tubercle
in the permanent first molars was similar for types I, II, and III mm, the mesiodistal crown dimension ranges from 9.2 to
(►Fig. 1). However, for Ferreira et al,15 the expression of the 10.5 mm, the mesiodistal crown dimension in cervical cervix
most common molar tubercle was type I, present in 30.12%, area ranges from 6.7 to 9.0 mm, the maximum buccolingual
followed by small prominence (type II), with the big promi- dimension of the crown ranges from 11.0 to 12.0 mm, and the
nence being the least observed. length of the roots ranges from 12.95 to 16.0 mm.4
Ferreira et al15 evaluated 402 teeth, with 210 being It is verified from the buccal surface view, that the dis-
deciduous and 192 permanent teeth. The authors reported tobuccal cusp is smaller than the mesiobuccal one. This
that the most frequent molar tubercle morphology was difference leads a cervical inclination of the occlusal ridge
depression in primary teeth (57.14%) and in permanent teeth from mesial to distal direction. The developmental grooves
(30.12%), followed by small prominence. The prominent (which separates the cusps) are smaller and uncommonly end
morphology was the least observed, and the absence of in a pit.5
molar tubercle was observed in 30.48% of primary teeth The mesial surface is almost flat, and the distal surface
and in 47.91% of permanent teeth. The authors15 also ob- presents a slight convexity.3,17
served a significant association between the presence of the The rhomboid morphology, which is tetracuspid, resembles
molar tubercle and the dentition, with the primary dentition the shape of the upper first molar, although the fourth cusp is
being the most affected. The molar tubercle was observed in decreased (►Fig. 2). All cusps and marginal ridges are perfectly
69.52% of the evaluated primary second molars and 52.09% of differentiated. These cusps have different sizes, with the
the permanent first molars. Sexual dimorphism related to mesiolingual cusp being the largest one. Following the mesio-
the presence or absence of the molar tubercle was also lingual cusp, in decreasing order, is the mesiobuccal, the
observed, with a higher prevalence in men. distobuccal and the distolingual cusps.1 The oblique ridge is
The upper first molar presents three roots. Among them, less frequent and when it appears it is not very high.1,5 The
two are buccal roots (mesiobuccal and distobuccal) and one grooves are basically those described in the upper first molar,
is a lingual root (the largest, longest, most conical and most with the difference that the groove that connects the central
regular).5,9,13 Fusion of dental roots is not frequent, and, pit to the distal pit, crossing the oblique ridge, is much deeper,
when it appears, it is usually between the buccal roots, and/ actually dividing it, and creating an H-shape effectively.5
or between the distobuccal and lingual roots.1,4 In the evaluation of the 401 upper second molars of Brazilian
The upper second molar is present distally to the permanent individuals, we observed that 197 (64.83%) presented
upper first molar. Its calcification begins around the ages of 2.5 the tetracuspid morphology. In those teeth, the presence of
and 3; its eruption occurs around the ages of 13 and 15, and the oblique ridge was observed in 153 (77.66%) teeth. Of these, the
end of calcification around the ages of 14 and 16.1 Comparing it presence of oblique ridge was observed in 153 teeth (77.66%).
to the upper first molar, its dimensions are smaller. Picosse1 reported a frequency of 30 to 40% of the tetracuspid
The total length of the upper second molars range from morphology. Della Serra4 reports different frequencies of tet-
20.0 to 24.0 mm, the crown height ranges from 7.11 to 8.00 racuspid morphology of upper second molars, ranging from

Journal of Morphological Sciences Vol. 36 No. 4/2019

 Morphological Differences between Upper Molars Genaro et al. 307

Fig. 3 Permanent upper second molars. (A) Tricuspid with very prominent oblique ridge. (B) Tricuspid with small prominent oblique ridge.

93.7 to 1.3%, with 93.7% being observed in Melanesians; 69.4% Semites, Berbers and, and 7.3% in Melanesians. In Brazilians,
in Semites, Berbers and Egyptians; 46% found in Portuguese; Della Serra4 mentioned a frequency of 43.2%.
45.6% in Europeans and 1.3% in Swiss. Analyzing 97 Brazilian The third form of classification of the upper second molars
teeth, Della Serra4 observed that 56.7% of the teeth were is the compression morphology.1,4,5,11,16 This morphology is
tetracuspid. characterized by a tetracuspid tooth that seems to have
The second classification of the upper second molars is the suffered a compression in the distobuccal and mesiolingual
triangle morphology. Those teeth present the absence of ridges, joining the mesiolingual and distobuccal angles.16
the distolingual cusp. The lingual dimension decreases the From the occlusal view, the crown presents an ellipsoid
occlusal surface and shows only three cusps. The grooves morphology.1 The mesiobuccal and distolingual cusps can
resemble a “T,” whose distal segment is directed toward the be connected by an oblique ridge. In teeth in which those
lingual surface.1,16 cusps are very close, they may be fused, creating a tricuspid
From the 401 upper second molars, we observed that 141 tooth, by the loss of the fourth cusp.4 According to Sicher,12 in
teeth (35.16%) were tricuspid. From the same sample, the the original morphology of the tricuspid upper second molar,
presence of oblique ridge was evaluated. From the 100 the cusps are arranged in a straight line. The mesiobuccal
tricuspid upper second molars, 50 teeth (50%) presented cusp is located alongside a cusp, which is derived from the
oblique ridge, and in 15 (30%) the oblique ridge was very merging of the distobuccal cusp with the mesiolingual one.12
prominent, and 50% slightly prominent (►Fig. 3). According From the 401 evaluated upper second molars, 69 (17.02%)
to Picosse,1 the tricuspid morphology is the most common, presented a compression morphology (►Fig. 4). According to
present in  50% of the cases. Della Serra7 reports different the literature, this classification is present in 5 to 10% of the
frequencies of tricuspid morphology of upper second cases.5,18 According to Picosse,1 this morphology can be
molars: 54.4% in Europeans; 46% in Portuguese; 31.6% in present in 10% of the cases, much more than in the upper

Fig. 4 Permanent upper second molars. (A) Compression morphology with a deep groove crossing the oblique ridge. (B) Compression
morphology with a prominent oblique ridge.

Journal of Morphological Sciences Vol. 36 No. 4/2019

308 Morphological Differences between Upper Molars Genaro et al.

first molar, in which the frequency is rarer. Della Serra4 Conflicts of Interest
reports that this morphology is present in 5% of cases. In The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Portuguese people, the frequency is 18.7%.4 Della Serra4
observed a frequency of 4.3% of a small compression in upper
first molars; the upper second molars presented a much References
higher frequency, 36% presented mild compression, and 7.2% 1 Picosse M. Anatomia Dentária. 4 ed. São Paulo: Sarvier; 1977:294
presented high compression, while the third molars pre- 2 Alvares S. Fundamentos de Endodontia com Técnica Endodôntica.
2 ed. São Paulo: Quintenssence; 1995:343
sented 16% of small compression, and 7.1% presented high
3 Silva RG, Pécora JD. Anatomia dental: Dentes Permanentes. 1 ed.
compression.
São Paulo: Santos; 1998:76
None of the 401 upper second molars presented molar 4 Della Serra O. Anatomia Dental. 2 ed. Rio de Janeiro. Científica
tubercle. According to Sicher,12 the presence of molar tuber- (Jaboticabal) 1959;•••:330
cle in the upper second molar can occur, but it is rare. Woelfel 5 Madeira MC, Rizzolo RJC. Anatomia do Dente. 8 ed. São Paulo:

& Scheid9 reported that the presence of tubercles in the Sarvier; 2016:169
6 Costa C, Costa ACB, Savedra CMS. Fundamentos da Anatomia para
upper second and third molars is not so common. Madeira5
o Estudante de Odontologia. 1 ed. São Paulo: Atheneu; 2000:338
stated that there is no molar tubercle in the upper second 7 Sousa EMD, Carvalho LFPC, Pereira LL. Prevalência do tubérculo de
molar, similarly to our results. Carabelli no primeiro molar superior. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Fed
The upper second molar presents three roots: the lingual Bahia 2000;20:6–10
root, which is the highest one, and the mesiobuccal and 8 Della Serra O, Ferreira FV. Anatomia dental. 3 ed. São Paulo: Artes
distobucaal roots.1,5 Compared with the upper first molar, Médicas; 1981:334
9 Woelfel JB, Scheid RC. Anatomia Dental, sua Relevância para a
the roots divergence is lower1,2 and presents a higher fusion
Odontologia, 5 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2000:330
frequency, mainly between the mesiobuccal and the lingual 10 Vieira GF. Atlas de Anatomia de Dentes Permanentes: Coroa
root.1,2,5,8,12,19 Dental. 3 ed. São Paulo: Santos; 2018:144
11 Meredith HV, Hixon EH. Frequency, size, and bilateralism of
Carabelli’s tubercle. J Dent Res 1954;33(03):435–440
Conclusion 12 Sicher H. Anatomia Oral. 2 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Atheneu; 1955:555
13 Garza MTR. Anatomía Dental. 3 ed. México: Manual Moderno;
Regarding the permanent upper first molars, they were all
2009:170
tetracuspid and presented the oblique ridge connecting the 14 Vier-Pelisser FV, Só MVR, Broilo L, Oliveira LS, Pelisser A. Influ-
mesiolingual and the distobuccal cusps. The molar tubercle ência do Tubérculo de Carabelli na topografia do teto da câmara
was absent in most of the evaluated teeth, and, when present, pulpar de primeiros molares superiores. Rev. ABO nac. 2007;15
it was located in the mesiolingual cusp. (04):277–280
15 Ferreira MA, Hespanhol LC, Capote TSO, Gonçalves MA, Campos
Most of the evaluated permanent upper second molars
DB, Campos JADB. Presence and morphology of the molar tubercle
were tetracuspid, followed by tricuspid and compression according to dentition, hemi-arch and sex. Int J Morphol 2010;28
morphology. The oblique ridge was present in most of the (01):121–125
tetracuspid teeth and only in a few tricuspid teeth. The 16 Figún ME, Garino RR. Anatomia odontológica funcional e aplicada.
compression morphology was the least frequent. None of 2 ed. Porto Alegre. Art Med 2003;•••:532
the evaluated upper second molars showed molar tubercle. 17 Pagano JL, Carbó RAR, Ramón A. 1 ed. Anatomía dentaria. Buenos
Aires: Mundi; 1965:664
Although there are similarities between the upper first
18 Sicher H, Tandler J. Anatomia para Dentistas. 3 ed. São Paulo:
and second molars, we must always be aware of the features Atheneu; 1981:416
that differentiate them, so their functionality can be 19 Sicher H, Dubrul E. Anatomia Oral. 8 ed. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas;
restored. 1991:390

Journal of Morphological Sciences Vol. 36 No. 4/2019