International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2014
Redefining boundaries in odontogenic sinusitis: a retrospective evaluation of extramaxillary involvement in 315 patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saibene Alberto Maria, Pipolo Giorgia Carlotta, Lozza Paolo, Maccari Alberto, Portaleone Sara Maria, Scotti Alberto, Borloni Roberto, Messina Francesco, Di Pasquale Daniele, Felisati Giovanni
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Odontogenic sinusitis and "sinonasal complications of dental disease or dental treatment" (SCDDT) have been assumed to be limited to the maxillary sinus. Nevertheless, many patients also show more extensive sinonasal involvement and, occasionally, also have associated bilateral disease. We evaluated the incidence of extramaxillary extension over an 11-year period in our clinic.
METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 315 surgically treated SCDDT patients. Sinonasal involvement was assessed with presurgical imaging and confirmed with intraoperative findings. Patients were subsequently categorized into 3 groups, based on the sinonasal extension.
RESULTS: In 40.3% of patients the sinonasal condition was limited to the maxillary sinus. Forty-one percent of patients had unilateral extramaxillary involvement, and in 18.7% of patients, we found bilateral involvement.
CONCLUSION: Complete presurgery evaluation with endoscopy and a computed tomography (CT) scan in SCDDT patients is essential. SCDDT patients not responding to medical and dental treatment should be addressed with a planned approach targeting the extramaxillary extension, which may necessitate a combined oral and endonasal approach. It is unclear whether disease in the maxillary sinus contralateral to the primary maxillary sinus demonstrating odontogenic-induced disease is incidental, associated, or represents a subclinical odontogenic infection.
METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 315 surgically treated SCDDT patients. Sinonasal involvement was assessed with presurgical imaging and confirmed with intraoperative findings. Patients were subsequently categorized into 3 groups, based on the sinonasal extension.
RESULTS: In 40.3% of patients the sinonasal condition was limited to the maxillary sinus. Forty-one percent of patients had unilateral extramaxillary involvement, and in 18.7% of patients, we found bilateral involvement.
CONCLUSION: Complete presurgery evaluation with endoscopy and a computed tomography (CT) scan in SCDDT patients is essential. SCDDT patients not responding to medical and dental treatment should be addressed with a planned approach targeting the extramaxillary extension, which may necessitate a combined oral and endonasal approach. It is unclear whether disease in the maxillary sinus contralateral to the primary maxillary sinus demonstrating odontogenic-induced disease is incidental, associated, or represents a subclinical odontogenic infection.