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

Epidemiology of Odontogenic Sinusitis

Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is more common than historically thought, representing 25% to 40% of all maxillary sinusitis. Due to a lack of widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a specific international diagnostic code, a true overall prevalence is unknown. ODS may be caused by either a multitude of infectious dental pathologies or complications after dental procedures. The most common dental etiologies causing ODS are apical periodontitis (endodontic) and oroantral communication or fistula after dental extraction. Less commonly, ODS can evolve after dental implant or maxillary sinus bone grafting surgeries, infection of odontogenic cysts, or advanced periodontitis.

Sinus irrigation as an adjunctive therapy for odontogenic maxillary sinusitis - an in-depth analysis

BACKGROUND

Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OMS) is widely acknowledged in both the dentistry and otolaryngology fields. Recently, iatrogenic odontogenic maxillary sinusitis cases can be encountered frequently. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intraoral sinus irrigation using the small lateral window approach in patients with odontogenic maxillary sinusitis by comparing pre- and postoperative volumetric measurement of CBCT and symptoms. We surveyed 21 patients who visited the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at PNUDH from 2016 to 2022. All the patients' information was extracted from an electronic database. The patients with a follow-up period of 2 months or more were included. The three-dimensional volumetric measurement was performed using the ImageJ program (National Institute of Health, University of Wisconsin).

RESULTS

Among 21 patients, 16 (76.1%) were male, and 5 (23%) were female. The most common type of surgery was general anesthesia (16 cases) in which oroantral fistula was present in 7 cases. In the causes of maxillary sinusitis, there were seven implant-related patients, five patients of tooth extraction, seven patients of bone grafting, and two patients in other groups. Radiographic opacity decreased by 40.15% after sinus irrigation especially in bone graft and tooth extraction cases. Clinically, symptoms improved in 17 patients (80.9%).

CONCLUSION

By this study, it can be concluded that maxillary sinus irrigation using the small lateral window approach is a clinically and radiologically effective treatment method for odontogenic maxillary sinusitis.

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.

Reliability of large language models in managing odontogenic sinusitis clinical scenarios: a preliminary multidisciplinary evaluation

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the utility of large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence tools, Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) versions 3.5 and 4, in managing complex otolaryngological clinical scenarios, specifically for the multidisciplinary management of odontogenic sinusitis (ODS).

METHODS

A prospective, structured multidisciplinary specialist evaluation was conducted using five ad hoc designed ODS-related clinical scenarios. LLM responses to these scenarios were critically reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel of eight specialist evaluators (2 ODS experts, 2 rhinologists, 2 general otolaryngologists, and 2 maxillofacial surgeons). Based on the level of disagreement from panel members, a Total Disagreement Score (TDS) was calculated for each LLM response, and TDS comparisons were made between ChatGPT3.5 and ChatGPT4, as well as between different evaluators.

RESULTS

While disagreement to some degree was demonstrated in 73/80 evaluator reviews of LLMs' responses, TDSs were significantly lower for ChatGPT4 compared to ChatGPT3.5. Highest TDSs were found in the case of complicated ODS with orbital abscess, presumably due to increased case complexity with dental, rhinologic, and orbital factors affecting diagnostic and therapeutic options. There were no statistically significant differences in TDSs between evaluators' specialties, though ODS experts and maxillofacial surgeons tended to assign higher TDSs.

CONCLUSIONS

LLMs like ChatGPT, especially newer versions, showed potential for complimenting evidence-based clinical decision-making, but substantial disagreement was still demonstrated between LLMs and clinical specialists across most case examples, suggesting they are not yet optimal in aiding clinical management decisions. Future studies will be important to analyze LLMs' performance as they evolve over time.

One-stage combined ENT and dental surgical treatment of odontogenic sinusitis: a prospective study

PURPOSE

The study analyses outcomes of the surgical treatment of odontogenic sinusitis that concurrently address sinusitis and its dental source.

METHODS

A total of 364 adult patients were included, representing 13% of all patients we have operated on for any rhinosinusitis over the past 18 years. The diagnosis was based on both ENT and dental examinations including CT imaging. Patients were divided into three groups: (1) FESS with dental surgery without antrotomy, (2) FESS with intraoral antrotomy, and (3) intraoral surgery without FESS. The mean postoperative follow-up was 15 months.

RESULTS

First group involved 64%, second group 31%, and third group 6% of the cases. The one-stage combined ENT and dental approach was used in 94% of cases (group 1 and 2) with a success rate of 97%. Concerning FESS, maxillary sinus surgery with middle meatal antrostomy only was performed in 54% of patients. Oroantral communication flap closure was performed in 56% of patients (success rate 98%). Healing was achieved within 3 months. The majority (87%) of patients were operated on unilaterally for unilateral findings. Over the past 18 years, a 6% increase of implant-related odontogenic sinusitis was observed.

CONCLUSION

Odontogenic sinusitis is common, tending to be unilateral and chronic. Its dental source needs to be uncovered and treated and should not be underestimated. Close cooperation between ENT and dental specialists has a crucial role in achieving optimal outcomes. The one-stage combined surgical approach proves to be a reliable, safe, fast and effective treatment.

Expert consensus on odontogenic maxillary sinusitis multi-disciplinary treatment

ABSTARCT

Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OMS) is a subtype of maxillary sinusitis (MS). It is actually inflammation of the maxillary sinus that secondary to adjacent infectious maxillary dental lesion. Due to the lack of unique clinical features, OMS is difficult to distinguish from other types of rhinosinusitis. Besides, the characteristic infectious pathogeny of OMS makes it is resistant to conventional therapies of rhinosinusitis. Its current diagnosis and treatment are thus facing great difficulties. The multi-disciplinary cooperation between otolaryngologists and dentists is absolutely urgent to settle these questions and to acquire standardized diagnostic and treatment regimen for OMS. However, this disease has actually received little attention and has been underrepresented by relatively low publication volume and quality. Based on systematically reviewed literature and practical experiences of expert members, our consensus focuses on characteristics, symptoms, classification and diagnosis of OMS, and further put forward multi-disciplinary treatment decisions for OMS, as well as the common treatment complications and relative managements. This consensus aims to increase attention to OMS, and optimize the clinical diagnosis and decision-making of OMS, which finally provides evidence-based options for OMS clinical management.

Total times to treatment completion and clinical outcomes in odontogenic sinusitis

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential for effective odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) management. One point of debate has been the optimal timing of primary dental treatment and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), but differences in time to completion of these treatment pathways have not been studied.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on ODS patients from 2015 to 2022. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded, and various durations of time were analyzed from rhinologic consultation through treatment completion. Resolution of sinusitis symptoms and purulence on endoscopy was also recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine ODS patients were analyzed (47.2 % male, median 59 years-old). Of the 89 ODS patients, 56 had treatable dental pathology, and 33 had no treatable dental pathology. Median time to treatment completion for all patients was 103 days. Of 56 ODS patients with treatable dental pathology, 33 had primary dental treatment, and 27 (81 %) required secondary ESS. In patients who underwent primary dental treatment followed by ESS, median time from initial evaluation to treatment completion was 236.0 days. If ESS was pursued primarily followed by dental treatment, median time from initial evaluation to treatment completion was 112.0 days, which was significantly shorter than if dental treatment was pursued primarily (p = 0.002). Overall symptomatic and endoscopic resolution was 97.8 %.

CONCLUSIONS

After dental and sinus surgical treatment, ODS patients experienced 97.8 % resolution of symptoms and purulence on endoscopy. In patients with ODS due to treatable dental pathology, primary ESS followed by dental treatment resulted in a shorter overall treatment duration than primary dental treatment followed by ESS.

Is tooth conservation possible in odontogenic sinusitis? Prospective evaluation of affected teeth condition-based protocol

BACKGROUND

Affected tooth conservation is an often-overlooked problem in odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) treatment. Treatable dental conditions are improperly managed with extractions imposing an unnecessary health burden on patients. Furthermore, no down-to-earth protocols have been proposed for the clinical management of these patients.

AIM

This study aims to prospectively validate a treatment protocol for ODS based on dental mobility, an indirect sign of poor long-term tooth survival. The protocol suggests endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) alone followed by dental treatment for immobile affected teeth, and concomitant ESS and extraction for mobile teeth. Extraction of immobile teeth is considered if inflammation persists after the treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty cases treated with our protocol were prospectively examined about ODS cure and preservation of affected teeth.

RESULTS

Among the 35 patients with immobile affected teeth, only one required extraction for complete ODS cure after ESS. All five cases with mobile teeth and one with postoperative extraction had marginal periodontitis.

CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE

Ninety-seven percent of immobile affected teeth were preserved with complete ODS cure in this study. In case marginal periodontitis is present, extraction is likely to be necessary, although ESS should be prioritized over blanket extractions to preserve the teeth for patients' quality life.

Real-Life Experience in the Management of Sinonasal Complications of Dental Disease or Treatments

Diagnosis and management of sinonasal complications of dental diseases or treatment (SCDDT) may be challenging. We aimed to report our real-life experience in patients treated with endoscopic endonasal approach describing data about symptoms, etiology, extension of the disease and success rate. We evaluated retrospectively data about 262 patients diagnosed as SCDDT and managed from August 2015 to May 2022. In 44.65% cases, maxillary sinus complications were determined by a dental disorder; the remaining 55.34% of cases were iatrogenic. Patients were managed according to our multidisciplinary protocol including ENT, dental, and radiological evaluation. Treatments were planned with a personalized approach, based on the patient’s clinical characteristics; all patients were treated with an endonasal endoscopic mini-invasive conservative approach. Combined dental treatment was performed simultaneously in 152/262 (58%) of patients; in the remaining cases, it was postponed after surgery. The overall treatment success rate (symptom resolution and endoscopically observed maxillary sinus healing) was 96.5%. At 15 days after surgery, we observed a significant improvement in the quality of life. The mean post-operative Sinonasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22) score was significantly lower compared to baseline (6 versus 43.4; p < 0.05). Our study showed that endoscopic sinus surgery can be a successful procedure for treatment of SCDDT, leading to fast resolution of sinonasal symptoms and improving the quality of life. Furthermore, the technique allows removal of migrated dental material or dental implants even in challenging cases.

Odontogenic Sinusitis is a Common Cause of Operative Extra-Sinus Infectious Complications

BACKGROUND

Orbital, intracranial, and osseous extra-sinus complications can arise from bacterial or fungal sinusitis. Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) can cause extra-sinus complications, but its prevalence remains poorly characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of ODS as a cause of operative extra-sinus infectious complications and describe clinical features of all complicated sinusitis cases.

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective review was performed on all operative sinusitis-related extra-sinus complications from 2011 to 2020. ODS was diagnosed by sinus computed tomography (CT) and dental evaluations when available. Demographics, complication types, sinusitis etiologies, and various clinical features were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were included (mean age 55.5 years, 56% male). Of the extra-sinus complications, 40% were orbital only, 22% intracranial only, 13% osseous only, and 25% involved combined complications. The 2 most common causes of extra-sinus complications were ODS (40%) and mucopyocele (27%). When invasive fungal etiologies were excluded, and only unilateral maxillary opacification on CT was considered, nearly 60% of extra-sinus complications were due to ODS. Unilateral maxillary sinus opacification on CT was present in 100% of complicated ODS compared to 44% of nonodontogenic cases, and oral anaerobes were only identified in ODS cases. No complicated ODS patients underwent dental interventions during hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

ODS was the most common cause of operative extra-sinus infectious complications. Clinicians should consider ODS high on the differential diagnosis of all patients presenting with complicated sinusitis, especially when sinusitis is unilateral and invasive fungal infection is not suspected.

Treatment of Sinusitis Following Dental Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Implantological procedures aimed at rehabilitating upper jaw edentulous patients (dental implant placement and/or maxillary sinus grafting) can sporadically result in sinusitis. In these patients, endoscopic sinus surgery is the most commonly employed treatment, but clinical scenarios and comprehensive management strategies are extremely heterogeneous across studies.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically define treatment strategies and related success rates for sinusitis following dental implantation, detailing different current treatment choices and concepts.

METHODS

Adopting a PRISMA-compliant review framework, systematic searches were performed in multiple databases using criteria designed to include all studies published until November 2020 focusing on the treatment of human sinusitis following dental implantation. We selected all original studies, excluding case reports, specifying treatment modalities with objective treatment success definitions. Following duplicate removal, abstract and full-text selection, and quality assessment, we reviewed eligible articles for treatment modalities and success rates, which were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Among 581 unique citations, eight studies (181 patients) were selected. Seven studies were retrospective case series. All studies relied on endoscopic sinus surgery, often coupled with intraoral accesses, and assessed therapeutic success endoscopically. The pooled treatment success rate was 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 91.5%-98%). Failures were treated in seven of 15 cases with further antibiotic therapies and in another seven cases with surgical revision. A single patient was lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic sinus surgery appears to be the most frequent treatment of choice for sinusitis following dental implantation, with excellent success rates. The protean clinical picture drawn from the selected studies calls for the standardization of diagnostics and definitions in this field to enable direct comparisons between the results of different studies. The role of postoperative antibiotic therapies, which have been employed unevenly across studies, should also be prospectively investigated.

Odontogenic Sinusitis: From Diagnosis to Treatment Possibilities-A Narrative Review of Recent Data

The maxillary sinus is a structure at the border of specialties: otorhinolaryngology and maxillofacial surgery. Due to this fact, regarding etiology, it can be affected by both the rhinogenic and odontogenic path and can impose diagnostic difficulties. The etiopathogenic mechanisms that can affect the Schneiderian membrane are mainly inflammatory, iatrogenic, traumatic, and tumorous in nature. From a microbiological point of view, the bacteriology is polymorphic, including both aerobic and anaerobic species in acute OS, the predominating species in acute OS being aerobic, and in chronic anaerobic germs. The role of fungi in the determination of this pathology and in the production of the biofilm that leads to resistance to antibiotic treatment is also discussed. The present paper aims to present the etiopathogenesis, bacteriology, clinical manifestations, as well as treatment of odontogenic sinusitis (OS) from an updated perspective through reviewing the literature. If unilateral maxillary sinusitis is usually due to odontogenic causes, this does not clinically exclude the possibility of strictly rhinogenic causes in the occurrence of sinusitis. This underlines the important role of complex oral and rhinological clinical examination as well as the role of preclinical examinations in specifying the certainty diagnosis. Simple radiography, orthopantomography, CT, and CBCT are compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy. The treatment of OS is complex, involving medication, dental, and surgical measures. The value of endoscopic surgery is emphasized, comparing its advantages over the classic Caldwell-Luc technique.

The Bone Lid Technique in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Scoping Review

This scoping review aimed at reporting the outcomes of the bone lid technique in oral surgery in terms of bone healing, ridge preservation, and incidence of complications. Bone-cutting instruments and stabilization methods were also considered. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched using a combination of terms, including bone lid, bony window, piezosurgery, microsaw, cysts, endodontic surgery, impacted teeth, and maxillary sinus. A hand search was also performed. The last search was conducted on 30 November 2021. No date limitation was set. Searches were restricted to human clinical studies published in English. All types of study design were considered except reviews and case reports. After a two-step evaluation, 20 (2 randomized studies, 2 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, 13 case series) out of 647 screened studies were included, reporting on 752 bone lid procedures. The bone lid technique was associated with favorable bone healing when compared to other methods, and with a very low incidence of major complications. Clinical indications, surgical procedures, study design, follow-up duration, and outcomes varied among the studies. Overall, favorable outcomes were reported using the bone lid approach, though evidence-based studies were scarce.

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.

The Combination of a Buccal Trapezoidal Flap With a Palatal Connective Pedicle Flap for the Closure of Oro-Antral Fistulae

ABSTRACT

Various surgical techniques have been developed for the closure of oro-antral fistulae (OAF), all of them presenting some limitations. Nineteen consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of OAF were enrolled in the present case series study. The technique being tested included the reflection of a buccal trapezoid flap with the OAF at its center. The lesion was then fully exposed and debrided. A palatal pedicle connective graft was split from the overlying mucosa and it was rotated over the lesion and under the buccal flap, thereby double-sealing the fistula. The superficial layer of the palatal flap was left at its primary position and sutured, thus ensuring primary intention healing of the palate. The patients were followed for 30 days. No patient showed residual oro-antral communication by the end of the follow-up period. The pain level was highest at the end of the first follow-up week, with a median visual analog scale of 4, which decreased to 3 in the second week, and to 0 in the fourth week. The same trend could be observed for Discomfort. The combination of a buccal flap with a split palatal connective tissue flap is an effective surgical technique with good predictability and high patient satisfaction levels.

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.

Management of sinus graft infection-a systematic review

Sinus graft infections are rare but serious complications, as they are associated with significant morbidity and sinus graft loss. The aim of this study was to systematically review the management of sinus graft infection in order to define which protocols should be implemented. The terms searched in each database were "sinus graft infection management", "maxillary sinus lift infection", "maxillary sinus graft infection", "maxillary sinus elevation infection", and "maxillary sinus augmentation infection". The management of the sinus graft infection was assessed. The outcomes evaluated were maxillary sinus health and dental implantation results. The initial search yielded 1190 results. Eighteen articles were included, reporting a total of 3319 patients and 217 sinus graft infections. Drainage was performed with an intraoral approach in 13 studies, an endoscopic approach in two studies, and a combined approach in three studies. In every study, a disease-free sinus was finally obtained in all patients, but the outcomes of the graft and the dental implant were more varied. It is not possible to define the best treatment protocol for sinus graft infections based on the published data, since the level of evidence is poor. Management is very heterogeneous. This review highlights the necessity of surgical treatment associated with antibiotic therapy.

Expected Costs of Primary Dental Treatments and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Odontogenic Sinusitis

OBJECTIVES

Treatment of odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) due to apical periodontitis (AP) is highly successful when both dental treatment and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) are performed. Variation exists in the literature with regard to types and timing of dental treatments and ESS when managing ODS. This study modeled expected costs of different primary dental and sinus surgical treatment pathways for ODS due to AP.

STUDY DESIGN

Decision-tree economic model.

METHODS

Decision-tree models were created based on cost and treatment success probabilities. Using Medicare and consumer online databases, cost data were obtained for the following dental and sinus surgical treatments across the United States: root canal therapy (RCTx), revision RCTx, apicoectomy, extraction, dental implant, bone graft, and ESS (maxillary, ± anterior ethmoid, ± frontal). A literature review was performed to determine probabilities of dental and sinus disease resolution after different dental treatments. Expected costs were determined for primary dental extraction, RCTx, and ESS pathways, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Expected costs for the three different primary treatment pathways when dental care was in-network and all diseased sinuses opened during ESS were as follows: dental extraction ($4,753.83), RCTx ($4,677.34), and ESS ($7,319.85).

CONCLUSIONS

ODS due to AP can be successfully treated with primary dental treatments, but ESS is still frequently required. Expected costs of primary dental extraction and RCTx were roughly equal. Primary ESS had a higher expected cost, but may still be preferred in patients with prominent sinonasal symptoms. Patients' insurance coverage may also impact decision-making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A Laryngoscope, 2021.

ENT and dentist cooperation in the management of odontogenic sinusitis. A review

Odontogenic sinusitis represents by definition a border condition between otolaryngology and dental science and, from a holistic perspective, cannot be managed without a proficuous collaboration between specialists. This review focus on the different scenarios currently considered by international literature as related to odontogenic sinusitis and sinonasal complications of dental disease or treatment. Consequently, this review will cover all paranasal sinuses infections caused not only by dental disease (e.g. periodontitis and caries), but also by dental procedures (extractions, endodontics and the like), implantological procedures, pre-implantological (maxillary sinus grafting) and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. After dealing with the odontogenic sinusitis diagnostic process and general principles of treatment, we will thoroughly cover odontogenic sinusitis scenarios treatment following an aetiology-based approach. This literature review shows that, albeit more prospective and rigorous studies are badly needed for determining the best treatment for each patient affected by odontogenic sinusitis, the sheer variety of scenarios that may be encountered should be enough to encourage mutual collaboration between ENTs and dentist. Such collaboration is required both to perfect diagnostic and treatment and to provide a solid scientific and medico-legal foundation for each intervention proposed to patients.

Extrasinus Complications From Odontogenic Sinusitis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) can cause infectious orbital, intracranial, and osseous complications. Diagnosis and management of complicated ODS have not been discussed in recent sinusitis guidelines. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe epidemiological and clinical features, as well as management strategies of complicated ODS.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was performed to describe various features of complicated ODS. All complicated ODS studies were included in qualitative analysis, but studies were only included in quantitative analysis if they reported specific patient-level data.

RESULTS

Of 1126 studies identified, 75 studies with 110 complicated ODS cases were included in qualitative analysis, and 47 studies with 62 orbital and intracranial complications were included in quantitative analyses. About 70% of complicated ODS cases were orbital complications. Only 23% of complicated ODS studies were published in otolaryngology journals. Regarding ODS-related orbital and intracranial complications, about 80% occurred in adults, and 75% were male. Complicated ODS occurred most commonly from apical periodontitis of maxillary molars. There were no relationships between sinusitis extent and orbital or intracranial complications. High rates of anaerobic and α-hemolytic streptococcal bacteria were identified in complicated ODS. Management generally included systemic antibiotics covering aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, and surgical interventions were generally performed to address both the complications (orbital and/or intracranial) and possible infectious sources (dentition and sinuses).

CONCLUSION

ODS should be considered in all patients with infectious extrasinus complications. Multidisciplinary management between otolaryngologists, dental specialists, ophthalmologists, and neurosurgeons should be considered to optimize outcomes.

Role of Endoscopic Sinus Surgery and Dental Treatment in the Management of Odontogenic Sinusitis Due to Endodontic Disease and Oroantral Fistula

Background: Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is frequently encountered in ENT practice; however, there are no guidelines regarding its management. This study aims to analyse the results of endoscopic sinus surgery versus dental treatment in ODS. Additionally, we aim to demonstrate the benefit of associating endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) to surgical closure of chronic oroantral fistulas (OAF) by comparing mean time to healing in patients who opted or not for concurrent ESS. Methods: Records of patients with ODS were reviewed. Group one consisted of patients with ODS caused by periapical pathology undergoing either endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) or dental treatment. Resolution of ODS was considered treatment success and was compared between the two treatment strategies. Group two included patients with ODS and associated chronic oroantral communication. Time to healing was compared between patients undergoing OAF closure alone versus patients receiving associated ESS, using the Log-Rank test to correlate Kaplan–Meier curves. Results: 25 patients from a total of 45 in group one underwent dental treatment alone, and 20 opted for exclusive ESS treatment. The failure rate was 40% for patients treated with ESS compared to 4% (one patient) for dental treatment. ODS resolved in all patients in the second group, but the mean time to healing was half (10 days) when ESS was complementary to OAF closure. Conclusion: The present study represents the first estimator of the role ESS plays in OAF treatment. Nonetheless, it provides proof of the importance of first addressing dental problems in odontogenic sinusitis.

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.

The Prevalence of Odontogenic Pathology in Patients With Bilateral Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

We investigated cases with opacification on maxillary sinus computed tomography (CT) among patients with rhinosinusitis with opacification in both paranasal sinuses (bilateral rhinosinusitis) to confirm the involvement of odontogenic infections.

METHODS

This study included 75 patients who were diagnosed with bilateral rhinosinusitis based on clinical examination and evident opacification on at least one side on maxillary sinus imaging with computed tomography CT. The definition of odontogenic sinusitis was determined by examining EPT and oral findings, in addition to the CT and orthopantomography (OP), by one oral surgeon and two otolaryngologists.

RESULTS

We found that 45.3% of patients had odontogenic infections, which were associated with multiple infected teeth in some cases. Odontogenic infection was observed in both sinuses in some patients. Sinusitis with polyps was frequently associated with dental infection, and some cases were also associated with mycosis. Almost no oral symptoms were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that clinicians should consider odontogenic infection in patients with bilateral rhinosinusitis with opacification, on at least one side on maxillary sinus imaging. This means that accurate diagnosis may be challenging for otolaryngologist or dentists alone, suggesting that a collaboration between the two would be suitable for this task.

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.

Unilateral chronic maxillary rhinosinusitis after bone maxillary graft for dental implant placement: A case report

Odontogenic chronic maxillary rhinosinusitis has to be suspected in patient with a history of dental implant placement just after bone maxillary graft.

Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis: A comprehensive review

Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OMS) is a well-recognized condition in both the dental and otolaryngology communities. Close to 30% of cases of unilateral maxillary sinusitis may have an underlying dental pathology. Failure to identify a dental cause usually lead to cases recalcitrant sinusitis often associated with serious complications. The aim of this study is to describe the literature findings on odontogenic maxillary sinusitis that discuss anatomy, epidemiology, etiology, bacteriology, diagnosis and treatment.

The present review is based on a current search using bibliographic database and academic search engine. All the articles on odontogenic maxillary sinusitis published after 2000 were included. This study seeks to provide clinicians with evidence that motivates a comprehensive approach to the evaluation and management of OMS. Controversies on diagnosis and management have been addressed and data from different treatment plans were collected by exploring relevant publications.

The surgical treatment of OMS is based essentially on the dental surgery, combined with endoscopic sinus surgery, in order to completely remove the infection, restore the physiological drainage of the sinus and prevent recurrences of sinusitis. A multidisciplinary otolaryngology and dental team is mandatory to successfully manage the dental pathology and the complications resulting from the dental treatments.

Classification of sinonasal pathology associated with dental pathology or dental treatment

BACKGROUND

The pathologies of the posterior teeth in the first and second quadrant and their treatments can be associated with pathology of the maxillary sinus in up to 30% of the cases. Sinus lift surgery in order to place dental implants have increased their incidence. It is necessary, therefore, to address sinonasal pathology (SN) related to dental pathology (DP) or dental treatments (DT) from an interdisciplinary point of view by establishing collaborative working groups between Dentistry (DEN) and Otolaryngology (ENT), as well as by developing registries and establishing coordinated diagnosis and treatment protocols of sinonasal pathology. The aim of this study was to present a brand new and useful classification that relates dental pathology and dental treatments performed on antral teeth with sinonasal pathology to facilitate communication between dentists and otolaryngologists.

METHODS

A review of the literature was performed and a classification which related dental pathology and treatments to sinonasal pathology was developed.

RESULTS

Six categories are described in our system: absence of sinonasal or dental pathology (0); patients with dental pathology associated (1) or not (4) with sinonasal pathology; 2 and 5- patients with dental treatment not associated (2) or associated (5) with sinonasal pathology; and patients with sinonasal pathology without dental pathology (3). The classification has applications in diagnosis (association and possible causal relationship between the sinonasal and dental pathology) and in the treatment of these pathologies simultaneously or sequentially.

CONCLUSIONS

This classification integrates the presence or absence of dental pathology or dental treatment, and its association or not it with sinonasal pathology. Moreover, it facilitates the communication between dentists and otolaringologists and eases the registration of information and the planning of dental, implant and sinus lift treatments.

Comparison of bacterial maxillary sinus cultures between odontogenic sinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Bacterial odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is distinct from other forms of rhinosinusitis. Diagnosing ODS can be challenging because of nonspecific clinical presentations and underrepresentation in the literature. The purpose of this study was to compare maxillary sinus bacterial cultures between patients with ODS and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), to determine whether certain bacteria are associated with ODS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of 276 consecutive patients from August 2015 to August 2019 who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for bacterial ODS, CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), or CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). When present, pus was sterilely cultured from maxillary sinuses after maxillary antrostomy, and aerobic and anaerobic cultures were immediately sent for processing. Demographics and culture results were compared between ODS and CRS patients, and then separately between ODS and CRSsNP, and ODS and CRSwNP. ODS culture results were also compared between different dental pathologies (endodontic vs oroantral fistula).

RESULTS

The following bacteria were significantly more likely in ODS compared to CRS: mixed anaerobes, Fusobacterium spp., Eikenella corrodens, Streptococcus intermedius, Streptococcus anginosus, and Streptococcus constellatus. Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were inversely related to ODS. There were no significant differences in cultures between the different dental pathologies.

CONCLUSION

Certain bacteria were more likely to be associated with ODS compared to CRS when purulence was cultured from the maxillary sinus. Physicians should evaluate for an odontogenic source of sinusitis when these ODS-associated bacteria are identified in maxillary sinus cultures.

Management of odontogenic sinusitis: multidisciplinary consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) can present a therapeutic dilemma because multiple treatment strategies have been reported. ODS review articles have been published, but they have lacked multidisciplinary collaboration and an evidence-based methodology. The purpose of this article was to perform an evidence-based review of ODS management options, and develop a multidisciplinary consensus statement on ODS management options.

METHODS

An evidence-based review of dental and medical literature on ODS management was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review Databases up to December 2019. Exclusion criteria included non-English-language articles, case series with fewer than 10 patients, fungal sinusitis, and studies that did not report treatment success rates. Because aggregate levels of evidence for recommendations were no higher than level C, a clinical consensus statement was conducted using a modified Delphi method.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles met inclusion criteria for the evidence-based review on the following ODS management options: dental treatment alone or combined with ESS for various dental pathologies, and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) alone for dental implant-related ODS. Strong consensus was achieved for 9 of the 10 clinical statements, the strongest being the use of shared decision-making for selecting management strategies. No consensus was reached for determining the extent of ESS necessary for uncomplicated ODS.

CONCLUSION

Strong consensus was reached that ODS management should involve shared decision-making between the otolaryngologist, dental provider, and patient, where the benefits and risks of dental treatment and ESS are discussed. Higher-quality studies are necessary to develop evidence-based treatment recommendations for ODS.

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.

Endoscopic sinus surgery for dental implant displacement into the maxillary sinus-a retrospective clinical study

The aims of this retrospective clinical study were to present our management protocol for the retrieval of impacted dental implants that have become displaced into the maxillary sinus cavity and to define the role of endoscopic sinus surgery in this setting. All 24 patients (25 implants) who underwent surgical retrieval of dental implants displaced into the maxillary sinus between 2012 and 2019 were included. Data on surgical interventions and complications were collected retrospectively. Eleven patients (46%) had chronic sinusitis associated with the migrated implant. All implants were successfully retrieved via transnasal endoscopic approach alone: 80% via a middle meatal antrostomy and 20% via a combined middle and inferior meatal antrostomy. Five patients required a concomitant transoral approach for oro-antral fistula repair. None required a transoral approach for displaced implant retrieval. All patients healed uneventfully without complications. Transnasal endoscopic sinus surgery via a middle meatal antrostomy or a combined middle and inferior antrostomy is recommended as the primary choice for dental implant retrieval from the maxillary sinus. A transoral approach should be performed simultaneously only for oro-antral fistula repair. This surgical protocol proved to be safe and efficient, and it obviated the need for osteotomies of the anterolateral maxillary wall.