| Literature DB >> 34199113 |
Piotr Kuligowski1, Aleksandra Jaroń1, Olga Preuss1, Ewa Gabrysz-Trybek2, Joanna Bladowska3, Grzegorz Trybek1.
Abstract
Odontogenic infections can directly trigger maxillary sinusitis. CBCT is an excellent choice for precise examination of maxillary sinuses and hard tissues within the oral cavity. The objective of this retrospective and the cross-sectional study was to analyze the influence of odontogenic conditions on the presence and intensity of maxillary sinus mucous membrane thickening using CBCT imaging. Moreover, periodontal bone loss and anatomic relationship between adjacent teeth and maxillary sinuses were assessed to evaluate its possible impact on creating maxillary thickening. The study sample consisted of 200 maxillary sinuses of 100 patients visible on CBCT examination with a field of view of 13 × 15 cm. The presented study revealed a significant influence of periapical lesions, inappropriate endodontic treatment, severe caries, and extracted teeth on the presence of increased thickening of maxillary sinus mucous membrane. In addition, an increase in the distance between root apices and maxillary sinus floor triggered a significant reduction of maxillary sinus mucous membrane thickening. The presence of periodontal bone loss significantly increases maxillary sinus mucous membrane thickening.Entities:
Keywords: cone-beam computed tomography; maxillary sinus; odontogenic infections; sinusitis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34199113 PMCID: PMC8268029 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10132849
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1H—the healthy teeth.
Figure 2I—the impacted teeth.
Figure 3R—the removed teeth.
Figure 4C—the teeth with severe caries infection.
Figure 5E—the teeth subjected to successful endodontic treatment.
Figure 6NE—the teeth subjected to unsuccessful endodontic treatment.
Figure 7P—the teeth with periapical lesion.
Figure 8Sample measurement of distance of the teeth to maxillary sinus.
Figure 9Sample measurement of periodontal bone loss.
Figure 10Sample measurement of mucosal thickening.
Baseline characteristics.
| Sex | N | % | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woman | 50 | 50% | |||||
| Man | 50 | 50% | |||||
| Wiek [lata] | |||||||
| N | Mean | SD | Median | Min | Max | Q1 | Q3 |
| 100 | 46,63 | 15,5 | 47 | 22 | 84 | 33 | 60 |
N—number of patients, SD—standard deviation, min—minimum value, max—maximum value, Q1—first quartile, Q3—third quartile.
Comparison analysis of mucosal thickening according to odontogenic condition.
| Odontogenic Condition | Mucosa Thickening (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| H (N = 468) | 2.87 ± 5.04 | 1.5 | 0.7–2.5 | |
| P (N = 104) | 12.35 ± 10.12 | 10.05 | 4.45–15.48 | |
| C (N = 133) | 6.38 ± 7.07 | 3.7 | 2.2–7.5 | |
| I (N = 41) | 3.8 ± 4.99 | 1.7 | 1.1–5.4 | |
| R (N = 366) | 6.46 ± 9.07 | 2.1 | 1.3–7.82 | |
| E (N = 49) | 3.25 ± 4.72 | 1.6 | 0.9–3.2 | |
| NE (N = 39) | 6.86 ± 8.9 | 3.5 | 2.05–8.4 | |
Key—NND—non-normal distribution of data, N—number of teeth in each group, p—level of significance, Kruskal–Wallis test + results of posthoc analysis (Dunn’s test).
Comparison analysis of mucosal thickening according to periodontal bone loss.
| Results of Analysis of Mucosal Thickening According to Periodontal Bone Loss | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tooth Number | Correlation Coefficient |
| Correlation Current | Strength of Correlation |
| 18 | 0.314 | --- | --- | |
| 17 | 0.41 | Positive | Weak | |
| 16 | 0.22 | --- | --- | |
| 15 | 0.194 | --- | --- | |
| 14 | 0.299 | Positive | Very weak | |
| 13 | 0.248 | Positive | Very weak | |
| 23 | 0.115 | --- | --- | |
| 24 | 0.344 | Positive | Weak | |
| 25 | 0.17 | --- | --- | |
| 26 | 0.147 | --- | --- | |
| 27 | 0.239 | Positive | Very weak | |
| 28 | 0.322 | --- | --- | |
Key: NND—non-normal distribution of data, p—level of significance, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.
Comparison analysis of mucosal thickening according to anatomic relation between teeth and maxillary sinus.
| Results of Analysis of Mucosal Thickening According to Anatomic Relation between Teeth and Maxillary Sinus | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tooth Number | Correlation Coefficient |
| Correlation Current | Strength of Correlation |
| 18 | −0.121 | --- | --- | |
| 17 | 0.041 | --- | --- | |
| 16 | −0.315 | Negative | Weak | |
| 15 | −0.297 | Negative | Very weak | |
| 14 | −0.168 | --- | --- | |
| 13 | 0.027 | --- | --- | |
| 23 | −0.015 | --- | --- | |
| 24 | 0.026 | --- | --- | |
| 25 | −0.051 | --- | --- | |
| 26 | −0.179 | --- | --- | |
| 27 | −0.329 | Negative | Weak | |
| 28 | 0.136 | --- | --- | |
Key: NND—non-normal distribution of data, p—level of significance, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.
Comparative analysis of the average mucosal thickening, classified in a three-grade scale and odontogenic condition.
| Teeth Group | Mucosal Thickening Grade 1 | Mucosal Thickening Grade 2 | Mucosal Thickening Grade 3 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | 305 (52.59%) | 134 (31.02%) | 29 (15.43%) | <0.001 |
| P | 6 (1.03%) | 46 (10.65%) | 52 (27.66%) | |
| C | 28 (4.83%) | 83 (19.21%) | 22 (11.70%) | |
| I | 23 (3.97%) | 15 (3.47%) | 3 (1.60%) | |
| R | 179 (30.86%) | 116 (26.85%) | 71 (37.77%) | |
| E | 29 (5.00%) | 16 (3.70%) | 4 (2.13%) | |
| NE | 10 (1.72%) | 22 (5.09%) | 7 (3.72%) | |
| All teeth | 580 (48%) | 432 (36%) | 188 (16%) |