Redefining boundaries in odontogenic sinusitis: a retrospective evaluation of extramaxillary involvement in 315 patients

Sinus Evaluation for Odontogenic Sinusitis

This article summarizes how to diagnose common and nuanced cases of odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) through a collaborative approach between otolaryngologists and dental specialists, with a heightened focus on the role of otolaryngologists in the diagnostic process. A critical part of the diagnostic framework is that otolaryngologists must confirm the infectious sinusitis but also suspect ODS to ensure he or she refers the patient to a dental specialist to confirm or refute ipsilateral infectious maxillary dental pathology. To confirm the purulent sinusitis of ODS, nasal endoscopy is most critical. Computed tomography imaging is an important part of the workup.

Sinusitis Management in Odontogenic Sinusitis

For odontogenic sinusitis (ODS), appropriately treating the infectious dental pathology and sinusitis leads to disease resolution in greater than 90% of cases. Importantly, managing the sinusitis of ODS is distinct from non-odontogenic rhinosinusitis. The main factors affecting ODS management decision-making include whether patients present with complicated ODS (extrasinus infectious spread), whether they have treatable dental pathology, and whether they have high dental versus sinusitis symptom burdens. This article will provide an evidence-based approach to the multidisciplinary management necessary to manage the purulent sinusitis characteristic of ODS.

Dental Evaluation: Oral Surgery-Related Complications

The article provides an in-depth review focused on diagnosing oral surgery-related complications that may cause odontogenic sinusitis (ODS). It emphasizes the importance of evaluating patients with prior oral surgical procedures to determine whether the prior procedure is an ongoing infectious source of the ODS. Specifically, diagnostic evaluations will be described for detecting oroantral communications and fistulas, dental implant dislocation or protrusion, and whether implants and graft placed in maxillary sinuses are infected. It highlights the role of different oral examination techniques, optimal imaging modalities, and the importance of otolaryngologic collaboration to evaluate for infectious ODS.

Pediatric Odontogenic Sinusitis: A Systematic Review

Background: Pediatric odontogenic sinusitis (PODS) is a rare condition with limited research on its clinical features, diagnostic criteria, and treatment options. The current guidelines on pediatric rhinosinusitis do not mention a possible dental origin of the disease. This systematic review aims to summarize and analyze the existing literature on PODS, focusing on epidemiology, etiology, diagnostic tools, complications, treatment options, and outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA reporting guidelines. Electronic searches were performed in multiple databases using keywords related to PODS and therapeutic strategies. Original articles reporting data on treatment outcomes for PODS were included. Results: The review highlighted the scarcity of high-quality evidence on PODS. The literature mainly consists of case reports and low-grade evidence studies. Limited data on the epidemiology, etiology, diagnostic tools, complications, and treatment outcomes of PODS in children are available. Conclusions: Further research is needed to better understand the clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment of PODS in pediatric patients. High-quality studies are required to establish evidence-based guidelines for the management of this condition, especially given the apparently high rate of complications when compared to adult ODS.

Odontogenic sinusitis: A state‐of‐the‐art review

Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is more common than historically reported, and is underrepresented in the sinusitis literature. ODS is distinct from rhinosinusitis in that it is infectious sinusitis from an infectious dental source or a complication from dental procedures, and most commonly presents unilaterally. ODS clinical features, microbiology, and diagnostic and treatment paradigms are also distinct from rhinosinusitis. ODS evaluation and management should generally be conducted by both otolaryngologists and dental providers, and clinicians must be able to suspect and confirm the condition. ODS suspicion is driven by certain clinical features like unilateral maxillary sinus opacification on computed tomography, overt maxillary dental pathology on computed tomography, unilateral middle meatal purulence on nasal endoscopy, foul smell, and odontogenic bacteria in sinus cultures. Otolaryngologists should confirm the sinusitis through nasal endoscopy by assessing for middle meatal purulence, edema, or polyps. Dental providers should confirm dental pathology through appropriate examinations and imaging. Once ODS is confirmed, a multidisciplinary shared decision‐making process should ensue to discuss risks and benefits of the timing and different types of dental and sinus surgical interventions. Oral antibiotics are generally ineffective at resolving ODS, especially when there is treatable dental pathology. When both the dental pathology and sinusitis are addressed, resolution can be expected in 90%–100% of cases. For treatable dental pathology, while primary dental treatment may resolve the sinusitis, a significant percentage of patients still require endoscopic sinus surgery. For patients with significant sinusitis symptom burdens, primary endoscopic sinus surgery is an option to resolve symptoms faster, followed by appropriate dental management. More well‐designed studies are necessary across all areas of ODS.

Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is one of the most common cause of unilateral maxillary sinus disease, but has been underrepresented in previous sinusitis literature.

Clinicians must be able to suspect ODS based on certain clinical features like unilateral middle meatal purulence on nasal endoscopy, subjective foul smell, and sinus computed tomography demonstrating maxillary sinus opacification with or without overt adjacent dental pathology.

Diagnosing ODS requires confirmation of infectious sinusitis by otolaryngologists ideally with nasal endoscopy, and confirmation of adjacent maxillary dental pathology by dental specialists.

Management centers on multidisciplinary collaboration and shared‐decision making between otolaryngologists, dental specialists, and patients.

Clinical and radiographic assessment and restoration of maxillary sinus function in relation to oro-antral fistula closure: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine current practice in assessment of maxillary sinus health during oro-antral fistula closure.

METHOD

A systematic review using specific MeSH headings between 1990 and September 2021 on Medline, Ovid, and PubMed was performed. The inclusion criterion was closure of oro-antral fistula in adult patients. Exclusion criteria were oro-antral fistula arising in children; or from trauma, malignancy, or developmental abnormality; or any osteonecrotic lesion of bone. Risk of bias for individual papers was not assessed. Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine levels of evidence were recorded.

RESULTS

4309 papers were identified, and 119 were eligible for review. Nineteen were from otolaryngology (16%), 25 from combined ear, nose, and throat (ENT) and oral/oral and maxillofacial (OS/OMF) surgery (21%), and 75 from OS/OMF surgery (63%). Preoperative rhinoscopy and cross-sectional imaging were reported in 33 papers (28%), reflecting the role of ENT with or without OS/OMFS. Sixty-eight did not record any formal assessment of maxillary sinus health (57%), of which 60 were from OS/OMF surgery (50%). Use of computed tomography was reported in 58 papers (49%), and use of cone beam computed tomography was reported in 8 papers (7%) but did not correlate with assessment of sinus health.

DISCUSSION

Most surgery for oro-antral fistual closure was undertaken without objective assessment of maxillary sinus health, pre- or postoperatively. The involvement of ENT was associated with formal assessment of maxillary sinus health.

Analysis of the Radiological Changes of the Sinus Membrane Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Its Relationship with Dental Treatments. A Retrospective Study

Simple Summary

Changes in the sinus membrane, in the form of thickening or opacification, usually pose problems of differential diagnosis between rhinological and odontogenic causes, given the similarity in their clinical behaviour. The interrelation between tooth roots and the possibility of maxillary sinus involvement seems to be a key determinant. Moreover, the role played by iatrogenic factors, especially surgical interventions, such as dental extractions, or impacted teeth, as well as implant treatments, must be considered. The contribution of new imaging procedures, such as conventional computed tomography or cone beam computed tomography, has triggered an increase in the identification of dental aetiology as a cause of the unilateral opacification of the anterior paranasal sinuses with the predominant involvement of the maxillary sinus.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify the most relevant dental factors and iatrogenic causes in the development of pathological changes to the sinus membrane and to analyse their possible influence on the development of odontogenic sinusitis. A descriptive, observational study was designed, with 276 patients who had been evaluated via cone beam computed tomography, analysing possible sinus thickening factors, such as apical infections, endodontic treatments, periodontitis, radicular cysts and impacted teeth, as well as iatrogenic factors caused by implant treatments or the development of oroantral communications produced during tooth extraction manoeuvres. Among the dental factors, periodontitis (47.1%), apical pathology (23.5%) and endodontic treatments (23.1%) were the predominant causes of sinus membrane thickening that most frequently produced an occupancy between 2 and 10 mm. Regarding the implant treatments, the placement of implants through the floor of the maxillary sinus was the main cause (9.8%), followed by sinus elevation techniques (6.2%). Dental extraction was the first cause of oroantral communication (5.0%), being the procedure that caused the greatest thickening of the sinus membrane. This study highlights the importance of dental treatments and iatrogenic factors in sinus pathology, and the need for diagnostic interrelations between the different specialists who address this pathology.

Odontogenic Maxillary Sinusitis: The Interface and Collaboration between Rhinologists and Dentists

Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OMS) is an inflammatory condition affecting the paranasal sinuses and is commonly encountered by both Otorhinolaryngologists and Dentists. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the best sequence of management. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of first addressing either the affected tooth or the affected sinus. This paper provides a review of the current literature on the aetiology, presentation, and management of OMS, as well as our experience in managing this condition. Overall, the causative pathology of the patient’s OMS, their symptoms, and the risk of surgery should drive decision making with regards to sequence of management.

Odontogenic sinusitis - case series and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Odontogenic sinusitis is a common cause of rhinosinusitis that is often undiagnosed and overlooked. No single sign or symptom is specific for odontogenic sinusitis, and failure to focus on the specific radiological features can delay diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

This paper presents four cases of chronic sinusitis that had an odontogenic origin. Each case was referred for a second opinion. Three patients had previously undergone unsuccessful surgical management.

METHODS

The literature, and the associated contributory clinical, radiological and microbiological features required for correct diagnosis and management, are reviewed.

RESULTS

Each case resulted in a positive patient outcome following the involvement of both otolaryngology and maxillofacial surgery departments.

CONCLUSION

A high index of suspicion is advocated for odontogenic sinusitis in cases not responding to standard management plans. Collaboration with a maxillofacial specialist is important for diagnosis and management. This should be considered where standard management fails, or clinical features and radiological signs of odontogenic sinusitis are present. This paper also highlights the need for otolaryngologists to incorporate, at the very least, a basic dental history and examination as part of their assessment in recalcitrant cases.

Ten-year experience with multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment of odontogenic sinusitis

BACKGROUND

Odontogenic sinusitis is an underdiagnosed entity and is one cause of failure of conventional treatments of sinusitis. Unfortunately, there is no consensus so far on the best management protocol. This retrospective study aimed to suggest a practical management protocol that can reduce misdiagnosis and improve treatment outcomes.

METHODS

The study included 74 patients with confirmed odontogenic sinusitis who were diagnosed and treated over 10 years (2010-2019). The patient data were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

Dental pain was reported in only 31.1 per cent of patients. Fifty-six patients (75.7 per cent) had received dental treatment during the last year, but only 13 (23.1 per cent) reported it. Dental pathology was missed on initial computed tomography evaluation in 24 patients (32.4 per cent). Forty-one patients (55.4 per cent) were successfully treated by dental procedures and antibiotics. Fourteen patients needed functional endoscopic sinus surgery in addition to dental procedures.

CONCLUSION

Successful management of odontogenic sinusitis requires good communication between rhinologists, radiologists and dentists. Dental treatment should be the logical first step in the treatment protocol, unless otherwise indicated.

Diagnosing odontogenic sinusitis of endodontic origin: A multidisciplinary literature review

PURPOSE

Endodontic disease is one of the most common causes of bacterial odontogenic sinusitis (ODS). Diagnosing ODS of endodontic origin involves otolaryngologists confirming sinusitis, and dental specialists confirming endodontic sources. The purpose of this study was to conduct a multidisciplinary literature review to highlight clinical and microbiological features of ODS, and the most optimal diagnostic modalities to confirm endodontic disease.

METHODS

An extensive review of both medical and dental literature was performed by rhinologists, endodontists, and an infectious disease specialist. Frequencies of various clinical and microbiological features from ODS studies were collected, and averages were calculated. Different endodontic testing and imaging modalities were also evaluated on their abilities to confirm endodontic disease.

RESULTS

ODS patients most often present with unilateral sinonasal symptoms for over 3 months, purulence on nasal endoscopy, and overt dental pathology on computed tomography (CT). Subjective foul smell, and maxillary sinus cultures demonstrating anaerobes and α-streptococci (viridans group) may be more specific to ODS. For endodontic evaluations, cold pulp testing and cone-beam CT imaging are most optimal for confirming pulpal and periapical disease.

CONCLUSION

Diagnosing ODS requires collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental specialists. Clinicians should suspect ODS when patients present with unilateral sinonasal symptoms, especially foul smell. Patients will generally have purulent drainage on nasal endoscopy, and both sinus opacification and overt dental pathology on CT. However, some patients will have subtle or absent dental pathology on CT. For suspected endodontic disease, endodontists should be consulted for at least cold pulp testing, and ideally cone-beam CT.

Diagnosing odontogenic sinusitis: An international multidisciplinary consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is distinct from non-odontogenic rhinosinusitis, and often requires multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers to make the diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to develop international multidisciplinary consensus on diagnosing ODS.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was used to assess for expert consensus on diagnosing bacterial ODS. A multidisciplinary panel of 17 authors with ODS expertise from 8 countries (8 otolaryngologists, 9 dental specialists) was assembled. Each author completed 2 of 3 surveys (2 specialty-specific, and 1 for all authors). Thirty-seven clinical statements were created, focusing on 4 important diagnostic components: suspecting ODS; confirming sinusitis in ODS; confirming different dental pathologies causing ODS; and multidisciplinary collaborative aspects of diagnosing ODS. Target audiences were all otolaryngologists and dental providers.

RESULTS

Of the 37 clinical statements, 36 reached consensus or strong consensus, and 1 reached no consensus. Strong consensus was reached that certain clinical and microbiologic features should arouse suspicion for ODS, and that multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers is generally required to diagnose ODS. To diagnose ODS, otolaryngologists should confirm sinusitis mainly based on nasal endoscopic findings of middle meatal purulence, edema, or polyps, and dental providers should confirm dental pathology based on clinical examination and dental imaging.

CONCLUSION

Based on multidisciplinary international consensus, diagnosing ODS generally requires otolaryngologists to confirm sinusitis, and dental providers to confirm maxillary odontogenic pathology. Importantly, both dental providers and otolaryngologists should suspect ODS based on certain clinical features, and refer patients to appropriate providers for disease confirmation.

Diagnostic Criteria for Odontogenic Sinusitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Odontogenic sinusitis affects a significant proportion of patients with paranasal sinus infections. Nevertheless, no shared diagnostic criteria for this condition have yet been implemented and published studies differ in their definition of the disease.

OBJECTIVE

The present systematic review of the literature was undertaken to characterize and analyze the different diagnostic criteria currently employed for odontogenic sinusitis.

METHODS

Systematic searches for studies published between 2009 and 2019 were performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Search criteria were designed to identify all studies focusing, even partially, on odontogenic sinusitis. Human original studies except single case reports published in the English, French, German, Spanish, or Italian language were included. We removed duplicate abstracts and conducted full-text reads, data extraction, and quality assessment procedures (using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine levels of evidence and National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Study Quality Assessment Tools). We reviewed articles for diagnostic criteria, both in terms of definition and etiology identification.

RESULTS

Among 1,000 unique citations, 63 studies were deemed eligible. Most articles (n = 45) were retrospective case series; a single randomized clinical trial was available. Only 49 studies reported diagnostic criteria, yet relied marginally on published guidelines (n = 10 articles) for identifying sinusitis, often choosing instead to develop their own clinical (n = 15 articles), endoscopic (n = 12 articles), and/or radiologic (n = 30 articles) criteria. For odontogenic focus identification, 14 papers required a multidisciplinary evaluation, 11 papers required a time relationship between dental procedures and sinusitis, 24 papers required oroscopy and/or dental evaluation, and 53 papers required computed tomography.

CONCLUSIONS

Current diagnostic criteria for odontogenic sinusitis are extremely heterogeneous. Establishing shared diagnostic criteria aimed at defining both sinusitis and related odontogenic foci would spur collaboration between investigators and support more comprehensive outcomes evaluations together with a better understanding of treatment options.

Recognizing odontogenic sinusitis: A national survey of otolaryngology chief residents

PURPOSE

Odontogenic sinusitis is underrepresented in sinusitis literature as well as in the otolaryngology teaching curriculum sponsored by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngologists and residents in training may therefore have a decreased awareness of the condition. The objective of this study was to survey otolaryngology chief residents toward the ends of their training to determine how often they considered odontogenic sinusitis as a cause of unilateral sinus disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online REDCap survey was conducted from December 2018 to January 2019. Online surveys were emailed to 119 Otolaryngology residency program directors in the United States of America, which were then forwarded to their chief residents. Surveys included 3 demographic and 4 clinical questions. Clinical questions included 3 computed tomography-based questions requiring either differential diagnoses or most likely diagnosis, and 1 question on residents' perceived prevalence of odontogenic sinusitis as a cause of unilateral sinus opacification. Answer choices were tabulated and compared based on geographic region and post-residency career plans.

RESULTS

Of 293 chief residents emailed, 94 completed the survey (32.1%). While answer choices on imaging-based questions varied, odontogenic sinusitis was generally underrecognized. Approximately 70% of residents felt odontogenic sinusitis represented 0%-40% of unilateral sinus opacification. There were no statistically significant differences in answers based on geographic distribution or post-residency career plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Otolaryngology chief residents recognized odontogenic sinusitis with variable accuracy on imaging, and generally underestimated its prevalence as a cause of unilateral sinus opacification. Efforts should be made to teach otolaryngology residents about odontogenic sinusitis.

Odontogenic causes complicating the chronic rhinosinusitis diagnosis

Objectives

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) frequently stems from a dental origin, although odontogenic sinusitis (OS) remains underdiagnosed amongst different professionals. This study aimed to explore how often odontogenic causes are considered when diagnosing CRS.

Materials and methods

Patient records from 374 new CRS patients treated at a tertiary-level ear, nose, and throat (ENT) clinic were selected. Entries and radiological reports were assessed exploring how often dentition was mentioned and OS was suspected, how often radiologists reported maxillary teeth, and how commonly typical OS microbial findings and unilateral symptoms occurred.

Results

Although 10.1% of the CRS diagnoses were connected to possible dental issues, teeth were not mentioned for 73.8% of patients. Radiological reports were available from 267 computed or cone beam computed tomographies, of which 25.1% did not mention the maxillary teeth. The reported maxillary teeth pathology was not considered in 31/64 (48.4%) cases. Unilateral symptoms associated with apical periodontitis (OR = 2.49, 95% CI 1.27–4.89, p = 0.008). Microbial samples were available from 88 patients, for whom Staphylococcus aureus was the most common finding (17% of samples).

Conclusions

Odontogenic causes are often overlooked when diagnosing CRS. To provide adequate treatment, routine assessment of patient’s dental history and status, careful radiograph evaluation, and utilization of microbial findings should be performed. Close cooperation with dentists is mandatory.

Clinical relevance

Dental professionals should be aware of difficulties medical professionals encounter when diagnosing possible OS. Thus, sufficient knowledge of OS pathology is essential to both medical and dental professionals.

Chronic Odontogenic Rhinosinusitis: Optimization of Surgical Treatment Indications

BACKGROUND

The treatment of chronic odontogenic and nonodontogenic rhinosinusitis is different. It requires the elimination of odontogenic cause and optimal sinus surgical treatment. To date, there are no clear indications when sinus surgical treatment is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to define clear indication(s) for sinus surgical treatment in patients with chronic odontogenic rhinosinusitis after elimination of odontogenic cause.

METHODS

A group of 96 patients with chronic odontogenic rhinosinusitis caused by apical periodontitis completed a Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT-22) questionnaire with incorporated additional symptom "malodor" before treatment. Moreover, they were distributed according to computed tomography (CT) radiological criteria such as degree of periapical pathology, anatomical ratio between maxillary lateral teeth and sinus floor, sinus mucosal thickening, and ostiomeatal complex condition. The elimination of odontogenic cause was performed by extracting causative tooth. Questionnaire was filled again 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment. All data were analyzed to search the clear indications for sinus surgical treatment.

RESULTS

Of 96 patients, 74 (77.1%) patients had full resolution of symptoms after dental cause was eliminated. For other 22 (22.9%) patients, symptoms persisted and sinus surgical treatment was indicated. In recovered group, mean SNOT-22 score was different between all periods of measuring, while within nonrecovered group, small differences were seen only when compared to before treatment. No statistically significant correlation between radiological criteria and rhinosinusitis healing after tooth extraction was found (P > .05). Statistically significant correlation was found between the disappearance of malodor/SNOT-22 score reduction after elimination of dental cause and healing success (P < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed that extraction of causative tooth is an effective treatment of chronic odontogenic rhinosinusitis caused by apical periodontitis. CT criteria are not valuable indicator for sinus surgery, but persistence of malodor after 2 weeks is the strongest indication for this type of treatment.

Odontogenic Sinusitis: Current Concepts in Diagnosis and Treatment

Odontogenic sinusitis is a unique cause of sinus disease that deserves special consideration. An astute clinician can elicit historical findings such as recent dental work, and symptoms such as unilateral facial pain and foul drainage, despite a relatively benign oral cavity examination. Otolaryngologists and dental professionals who care for these patients must be able to interpret imaging studies for dental disorder such as periapical abscesses and periodontal disease. Treatment is frequently some combination of antibiotic therapy, dental procedures, and endoscopic sinus surgery. More prospective studies are needed to determine the best approach to caring for this patient population.

Questioning the Justification of Frontal Sinusotomy for Odontogenic Sinusitis

PURPOSE

Odontogenic sinusitis (OS) can be caused by infectious conditions of the posterior maxillary teeth. The maxillary sinus has been most often involved because of its proximity to the posterior maxillary teeth. Often the anterior ethmoids and frontal sinuses will be involved by the infective process. The underlying odontogenic condition must be addressed before or during sinus surgery. The role of frontal sinusotomy in the treatment of these patients has been poorly described. Our objective was to present the surgical outcomes of patients with OS involving the frontal sinus who had undergone middle meatal antrostomy alone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective analysis of all patients who had undergone surgery at a single tertiary center to treat OS involving the frontal sinus from November 2015 to December 2018 was performed. Their preoperative assessment findings, surgical findings, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients (23 men and 22 women), with a median age of 57 years (range, 20 to 83 years), were enrolled in the present study. All anterior sinuses (frontal, anterior ethmoids, and maxillary sinuses) were clinically and radiographically involved in all the patients. Each patient underwent endoscopic wide maxillary middle meatal antrostomy concurrent with dental intervention. The average follow-up was 7 months. No signs of active frontal disease were detected by postoperative endoscopy in any patient, and no patient required revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the present study have shown that no justification exists for frontal sinusotomy for the treatment of OS involving the frontal sinus. Frontal sinusitis is a secondary infectious and inflammatory process that will resolve once the underlying odontogenic condition has healed and wide middle meatal antrostomy has been performed.

Acute rhinosinusitis - are we forgetting the possibility of a dental origin? A retrospective study of 385 patients

Background: Odontogenic sinusitis (OS) is a common but underdiagnosed form of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS). OS carries no specific characteristics, but unilateral symptoms and certain microbiological as well as radiological findings indicate odontogenic origin. Aims/objectives: We studied the proportion of OS in ARS patients, the presence and associations of unilateral symptoms, and possible OS microbial and radiological findings. In addition, we investigated how this condition is recognised among ear, nose and throat specialists and radiologists. Materials and methods: All 676 ARS patients treated in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology at Helsinki University Hospital in 2013 were retrospectively enrolled. The data were collected from patients' hospital medical records, the laboratory database and radiological reports. Results: Odontogenic origin of ARS was suspected in 59 (15.3%) patients. Altogether (29.9%) 115 patients complained of unilateral symptoms and these were found to associate with probable oral microbial findings (p < .001). These findings covered 20.2% of isolates. Teeth were mentioned in 89.6% of the radiological reports. Conclusions and significance: OS is common among patients with ARS, and good diagnostic tools already exist in routine practice. Microbial and radiological findings should be carefully evaluated, especially in cases of unilateral symptoms.

Evaluation of Odontogenic Maxillary Sinusitis with Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Retrospective Study with Review of Literature

Aim and Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to describe the radiographic characteristics of odontogenic maxillary sinusitis as seen on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and determine whether any tooth or any tooth root, was more frequently associated with this disease.

Materials and Methods:

The present study included 500 CBCT images that included the entire maxillary sinus of both the sides in all the three planes. The modified classification of Abrahams and Glassberg was used to assess maxillary sinusitis of odontogenic origin. Furthermore, the proximity of the tooth root to the sinus floor, periapical pathology, and the septae within the maxillary sinus were also assessed.

Results:

In the present study, 1000 hemimaxillas were analyzed. Majority of the cases (74.9%) the apex of either tooth was touching the floor of the sinus. While 16.9% were in close relationship to the sinus while 8.2% of the cases, the apices were present within the sinus. Furthermore, in the present study, 38 of the total cases had an odontogenic cause of maxillary sinusitis, whereas 273 of them had a nonodontogenic cause, 96 have an undetermined cause, and the rest 593 cases had healthy sinus.

Conclusion:

The incidence of odontogenic sinusitis is likely under-reported in the available literature. The introduction of low-dose CBCT is particularly useful to establish a definitive diagnosis to augment in the treatment of chronic maxillary sinusitis of odontogenic origin.

Imaging of odontogenic sinusitis

The aetiological relationship between dental disease and procedures and mucosal disease within the maxillary sinus has received extensive attention in the recent otolaryngological and dental literature. In contrast, the concept of an odontogenic cause for sinusitis is not well appreciated by radiologists. Review of the maxillary dentition, the alveolar process, and the relationship of the tooth roots to the floor of the maxillary sinus should be an integral part of interpretation of imaging of the paranasal sinuses. The pathogenesis, clinical presentation, and imaging features of rhinogenic and odontogenic sinusitis are discussed and compared. Clinical definitions of rhinosinusitis are explained and the huge impact on healthcare of this disease is briefly discussed. Periapical inflammatory lesions, post-extraction oroantral communication, and procedures used to augment the alveolar process prior to placement of dental implants are the commonest causes of odontogenic sinusitis. Current estimates are that an odontogenic cause for maxillary sinusitis is present in 25-40% of cases. The incidence of odontogenic sinusitis is rising, extension outside the maxillary sinus is common, and the diagnosis is often delayed, resulting in inappropriate and failed treatment. Differentiation of rhinological and odontogenic causes of sinusitis is usually difficult on clinical grounds and imaging plays a key role in the distinction.

Assessment of Simultaneous Surgery for Odontogenic Sinusitis: Endoscopic Sinus Surgery With Endoscopic Apicoectomy

Odontogenic sinusitis (OS) is a disease commonly encountered by otolaryngologists and oral surgeons. There is currently no standard consensus for the management of the causative teeth of OS, and the therapeutic outcomes of endodontic surgery remain unclear. The authors herein report the outcomes of simultaneous surgery for OS, endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) with endoscopic apicoectomy. Twenty-one OS patients who underwent ESS were included in the intent-to-treat population. Eleven patients who simultaneously underwent endoscopic apicoectomy were included as the study group, and another 10 patients who were subjected to the extraction of the causative teeth preceding or during surgery were included as the control group. The postoperative tooth course after surgery in the study group was assessed as the primary outcome by periodic radiographs. The postoperative sinus course was compared between the 2 groups as the secondary outcome. Seventeen teeth were subjected to endoscopic apicoectomy concurrently with ESS, and the treatment success rate for periapical lesions was 94.1% (16 out of 17 teeth), which was consistent with previously reported outcomes for endodontic microsurgery. Ten of 11 patients (90.9%) had good postoperative sinus courses, and the mean wound-healing period of the sinus mucosa was 6.9 ± 3.5 weeks. These results were not significantly different from those obtained for the control group (90% and 6.1 ± 3.2 weeks). This surgical procedure may contribute to the preservation of causative teeth without having an impact on the successful treatment of sinusitis. A comprehensive surgical approach by otolaryngologists and oral surgeons is desirable for the treatment of OS.

Odontogenic rhinosinusitis and sinonasal complications of dental disease or treatment: prospective validation of a classification and treatment protocol

Purpose

Odontogenic sinusitis and sinonasal complications of dental disease or treatment (SCDDT) represent a heterogeneous group of conditions that often require multidisciplinary care. The present study aims to prospectively validate a classification and treatment protocol for SCDDT patients.

Methods

One hundred twenty-eight consecutive patients (73 females and 45 males, mean age 52.4 years) affected by SCDDT not responding to dental and medical therapy were classified and surgically treated according to the proposed protocol. The protocol classified patients into three aetiology-based groups (preimplantologic, implantologic, and related to traditional dental diseases and procedures, respectively). The groups were further divided into classes according to the presence of oro-antral communications and/or dislocated dental hardware. Each condition was treated according to the class-related, protocol-defined treatment, by either a transnasal or combined transnasal/transoral approach. All patients were successfully classified according to our protocol. None of the proposed classes were redundant, and no condition fell outside the definitions.

Results

The surgical treatment protocol proved to be adequate and effective, in that 125 of the 128 patients completely recovered after surgical treatment.

Conclusions

The term SCDDT and the consequent classification proposed by the authors appear, therefore, to be nosologically correct. Furthermore, the protocol-related proposed treatment appears to be clinically sound, with a success rate nearing 98%.

Odontogenic sinusitis involving the frontal sinus: is middle meatal antrostomy enough?

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Inflammatory conditions of the posterior maxillary teeth may cause odontogenic sinusitis (OS), which most commonly involves the maxillary sinus due to its proximity to those teeth. The infective process frequently spreads outside the maxillary sinus, involving the anterior ethmoid and the frontal sinuses. The underlying odontogenic condition must be addressed before or during the surgical procedure. The role of frontal sinusotomy in this setting has not been studied. The aim of this study is to present the surgical outcome of patients who presented with OS involving the frontal sinus and were managed by middle meatal antrostomy alone.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

All patients operated in our department due to OS involving the frontal sinus from November 2015 to December 2017 were recruited. Their demographics, complaints, imaging and endoscopic findings, surgical features and outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (male-to-female ratio 9:16) with a median age of 49 years (IQR = 43-53) were enrolled. The maxillary, frontal and anterior ethmoid sinuses were involved in each case, and each patient underwent maxillary middle meatal antrostomy alone. The median follow-up was 10 months, and no signs of active frontal disease were detected by postoperative endoscopy in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Frontal sinusotomy is apparently not necessary to resolve OS involving the frontal sinus. The frontal sinusitis may reflect a reactive process that regresses spontaneously once the underlying odontogenic condition is addressed and a middle meatal antrostomy had been performed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2B.

Odontogenic sinusitis: A review of the current literature

Objectives

To present current literature on the topic of odontogenic sinusitis.

Data Source

PubMed literature search for odontogenic sinusitis.

Results

Odontogenic sinusitis is an inflammatory condition of the paranasal sinuses that is the result of dental pathology, most often resulting from prior dentoalveolar procedures, infections of maxillary dentition, or maxillary dental trauma. Infections are often polymicrobial with an anaerobe-predominant microbiome requiring special considerations for antimicrobial therapy. Medical management and treatment of the underlying dental pathology remains a critical initial step in the treatment of odontogenic sinusitis, however recent literature suggests that a significant portion of patients may require endoscopic sinus surgery for successful disease resolution.

Conclusions

This review describes the essential epidemiological and etiological factors, relevant clinical findings and diagnostic modalities, microbiologic and antimicrobial considerations, as well as the medical and surgical treatment approaches commonly utilized for the management of odontogenic sinusitis.

Level of Evidence

NA.

Odontogenic sinusitis: a comprehensive review

Odontogenic sinusitis (OS) is a highly prevalent, underappreciated and underdiagnosed disease that has been known for over 100 years. Apical periodontitis, periodontal disease and iatrogenic extrusion of foreign bodies into the sinus are the main causes of OS. Although the prevalence of sinus pathosis of dental origin is still controversial, otolaryngologists recognize that in the presence of recalcitrant sinusitis, a dental origin should be considered and properly treated. Currently, cone-beam computed tomography is the gold-standard imaging technique to assess the relationship between dental conditions, especially apical periodontitis and sinus diseases, and whenever this association is detected, patients should be seen by both a dentist and an otolaryngologist in order to achieve complete recovery. This article reviews the current concepts regarding the definitions, diagnosis and management of OS from a clinical point of view.

Monolateral sinonasal complications of dental disease or treatment: when does endoscopic endonasal surgery require an intraoral approach?

The widespread use of dental implants and reconstructive procedures for their positioning has led to an increase in sinonasal complications of dental disease and treatment (SCDDT). Diagnosis requires accurate dental and rhinological evaluation, including computed tomography (CT). The aim of this study is to investigate a multidisciplinary approach for the treatment of SCDDT by combining endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) and an intraoral approach on the basis of a preliminary classification system already proposed by other authors. Moreover, we analysed the percentage of odontogenic maxillary sinusitis extending to the anterior ethmoidal sinuses and bacteria involved in the pathogenesis of SCDDT. Between January 2012 and August 2015, in our series of 31 patients, 16/31 patients (51.6%) were treated with EES, 3/31 patients (9.7%) with an intraoral approach and 12/31 patients (38.7%) with a combined approach. All patients reported improvement in sinusitis symptoms confirmed by clinical examinations and CT scan. No significant complications were recorded and revision surgery was not required. Finally, the results of this preliminary study suggest that a multidisciplinary approach to SCDDT from diagnosis to therapy allows more precise diagnosis and comprehensive therapy to achieve a rapid recovery and minimise the risk of recurrence.

Systemic and Odontogenic Etiologies in Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Systemic and odontogenic etiologies of chronic rhinosinusitis, although rare, are an integral consideration in the comprehensive management of patients with sinonasal disease. Proper knowledge and timely recognition of each disease process, with referrals to appropriate consultants, will facilitate treatment, because many of these conditions require both local and systemic therapy. In some instances, medical therapy plays a pivotal role, with surgery being a supplemental treatment technique. We review the most commonly encountered systemic etiologies of chronic rhinosinusitis and odontogenic sinusitis, including clinical presentation, diagnosis, management, and treatment outcomes.

Unusual case of bilateral maxillary fungus ball

An otherwise healthy 34-year-old man was referred to our ear, nose and throat (ENT) clinic for a bilateral maxillary radiologic opacity. This condition was accidentally discovered with a panoramic radiography performed during a follow-up visit after a bilateral endodontic treatment. The patient did not report any specific sinonasal symptom such as purulent nasal discharge, loss of smell and cough, apart from an unspecific sinus pressure. The CT scans showed a bilateral inflammatory process into the maxillary-ethmoidal sinuses and an iron-like density within the maxillary sinuses, while nasal endoscopy showed purulent discharge in the ostiomeatal complex. The patient underwent functional endoscopic sinus surgery under general anaesthesia and the inflammatory material collected was histologically diagnosed as a rare case of bilateral fungus ball. The patient was dismissed the following day with no complications; there were not any sign of recurrence or symptoms during a 4 month follow-up.

One-Step Maxillary Sinus Augmentation in Association With Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Case Series and Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Sinonasal anatomical anomalies and inflammatory conditions may reduce success rates of maxillary sinus elevation (MSE) procedures used to allow implant placement in the atrophic posterior maxilla. Approaches combining endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and MSE were firstly proposed by our group and have already been described in the literature. This article aims to re-evaluate the procedure in a larger sample of patients comparing results and indications with the pertaining literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-three patients (19 men and 14 women, mean age 52.79 ± 11.95 years) underwent combined ESS/MSE with 48 MSE procedures performed.

RESULTS

No intraoperative complications were reported. An uneventful and complete graft integration was obtained after 6 months in all but one patient. All patients completed prosthetic rehabilitation within 9 to 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Combined ESS and MSE has proven to be a safe and reliable procedure, which can be proposed to selected patients presenting with reversible sinonasal contraindications to MSE and should be no more considered an experimental procedure.

Odontogenic and rhinogenic chronic sinusitis: a modern microbiological comparison

BACKGROUND

Odontogenic sinusitis and sinonasal complications of dental disease or treatment (SCDDT) play a relevant, often underappreciated role in paranasal sinus infections. Treating SCDDT patients requires tailored medical and surgical approaches in order to achieve acceptable success rates. These approaches differ from common rhinogenic sinusitis treatment protocols mostly because of the different etiopathogenesis. Our study comprehensively evaluated microbiology and antibiotic resistance in SCDDT patients and compared findings with a control group of patients affected by rhinogenic sinusitis.

METHODS

We performed microbiological sampling during surgery on 28 patients with SCDDT and 16 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Colonies were isolated, Gram-stained, and the species identified using classic biochemical methods. These results were confirmed by DNA pyrosequencing, and then the resistance profile of each SCDDT isolate to various antibiotics was tested.

RESULTS

Microbial growth was observed in all SCDDT patients, whereas samples from 60% of patients in the control group failed to yield any bacterial growth (p < 0.001). Anaerobes grew in 14% of SCDDT patients as compared to 7% of CRSwNP patients (p = 0.42). Of the isolates from SCDDT patients, 70% were susceptible to amoxicillin/clavulanate, whereas all isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin, teicoplanin, and vancomycin. Of the staphylococci identified, 80% were capable of producing beta-lactamase.

CONCLUSION

Given the extent of microbiological contamination within the maxillary sinus of SCDDT patients, these infections should be regarded as a different class of conditions from rhinogenic sinusitis. Our findings support the need for different approaches in the treatment of SCDDT patients.