Evaluation of maxillary sinus anatomical variation and pathologies through cone-beam computed tomography in patients with impacted third molars in the maxilla

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare between the frequency of anatomical variation and pathology in the maxillary sinuseshaving the impacted third molars in the maxilla adjacent to the dental arch and the maxillary sinuses adjacent to the dental archhaving the erupted third molars.Material and Methods: A total of 284 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of the maxillary sinuses, 141 of whichare adjacent to the impacted third molar teeth in the maxilla, and 143 of which are adjacent to the erupted third molar teeth, wereretrospectively evaluated. In the CBCT images, the pathology, septa, accessory ostium, overpneumatization, Haller cell and teeth rootrelation with sinus were evaluated in each maxillary sinus.Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pathology (p = 0.402), septa (p = 0.904) andoverpneumatization (p = 0.798) between the maxillary sinuses adjacent to the impacted third molar dental arch and the eruptedthird molar dental arch. However, there was a statistically significant difference in the frequency of accessory ostium (p = 0.032) andHaller cells (p = 0.025) between the maxillary sinuses adjacent to the impacted third molar dental arch and the maxillary sinusesadjacent to the erupted third molar dental arch.Conclusion: In the present study, the frequency of accessory ostium and Haller cells in the maxillary sinuses adjacent to impactedthird molar dental arches of the maxilla was found to be lower than in the maxillary sinuses adjacent to erupted third molar dentalarches.

PDF

___

1. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry, 2nd edition. St.Louis: CV Mosby Co, 1999.
2. Kilic C, Kamburoglu K, Yuksel SP, et al. An assessment of the relationship between the maxillary sinus floor and the maxillary posterior teeth root tips using dental cone-beam computerized tomography. Eur J Dent 2010;4:462-7.
3. Rothamel D, Wahl G, d’HoedtB, et al. Incidence and predictive factors for perforation of the maxillary antrum in op-erations to remove upper wisdom teeth: prospective multicentre study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;45:387-91.
4. Killey HC, Kay LW. Possible sequelae when a tooth or root is dislodged into the maxillary sinus. Br Dent J 1964;21:73-7.
5. Patel M, Down K. Accidental displacement of impacted maxillary third molars. Br Dent J 1994;177:57-9.
6. Dedeoğlu N, Altun O, Bilge O, et al. Evaluation of anatomical variations of nasal cavity and paranasal sinuseswıth cone beam computed tomography. Nobel Med 2017;13:36-41.
7. Ali IK, Sansare K, Karjodkar F, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of accessory maxillary ostium and Haller cells: Prevalence and clinical significance. Imaging Sci Dent 2017;47:33-7.
8. Yenigun A, Fazliogullari Z, Gun C, et al. The effect of the presence of the accessory maxillary ostium on the maxillary sinus.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273 4315-9.
9. Mathew R, Omami G, Hand A, et al. Cone beam CT analysis of Haller cells: prevalence and clinical significance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:20130055.
10. Matthews BL, Burke AJ. Recirculation of mucus via accessory ostia causing chronic maxillary sinus disease. Oto-laryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:422-3
11. Sicher H, Dubrul EL. Oral Anatomy, 3rd edition. St Louis:CV Mosby, 1975.
12. Kalavagunta S, Reddy KT. Extensive maxillary sinus pneumatization. Rhinology 2003;41:113-7.
13. Kruger E, Thomson WM, Konthasinghe P. Third molar outcomes from age 18 to 26: findings from a populationbased New Zealand longitudinal study. 0Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;92:150-5.
14. Demirtas O, Harorli A. Evaluation of the maxillary third molar position and its relationship with the maxillary sinus: a CBCT study. Oral Radiol 2016;32:173-9.
15. Lim AAT, Wong CW, Allen JC. Maxillary third molar: patterns of impaction and their relation to oroantral perfora-tion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:1035-9.
16. Pelinsari LJ, Moura Rodrigues CP, deCarvalho M, et al. Anatomic variations and lesions of the maxillary sinus detect-ed in cone beam computed tomography for dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;23:1398-03.
17. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology– Principles and Interpretation, 5th edition. St. Louis: MO Mosby, 2004.
18. Pruna X, Ibanez JM, Serres X, et al. Antrochoanal polyps in children: CT findings and differential diagnosis. Europe-an Radiology 2000;10 849-51.
19. Maestre-Ferrín L, Galán-Gil S, Rubio-Serrano M, et al. Maxillary sinus septa: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:383-6.
20. Na Y, Kim K, Kim SK, et al. The quantitative effect of an accessory ostium on ventilation of the maxillary si-nus. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2012;181:62-73.
21. Lang J. Clinical Anatomy of the Nose, Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses , New York:Thieme Medical Publishers Inc 1989.
22. Durmus E, Dolanmaz D, Kucukkolbsi H, et al. Accidental displacement of impacted maxillary and mandibular third molars. Quintessence Int 2004;35:375-7
23. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:106-14.
24. Som PM. CT of paranasal sinus. Neuro Radiol 1985;27:189- 201.
25. Ritter L, Lutz J, Neugebauer J, et al. Prevalence of pathologic findings in the maxillary sinus in cone-beam computer-ized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;111:634-40.
26. Vogiatzi T, Kloukos D, Scarfe WC, et al. Incidence of anatomical variations and disease of the maxillary sinuses as identified by cone beam computed tomography within the field of dental medicine. A systematic review Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014:29:1301-14.
27. Abrahams JJ, Hayt MW, Rock R. Sinus lift procedure of the maxilla in patients with inadequate bone for dental implants. Radiographic appearance AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1289-92.
28. Becker ST, Terheyden H, Steinriede A, et al. Pro-spective observation of 41 perforations of theSchneiderian membrane during sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Research 2008;19:1285-9.
29. Zijderveld SA, van den Bergh JP, Schulten EA, et al. Anatomical and surgical ﬁndings and complicationsin 100 con-secutive maxillary sinus floor eleva-tion procedures. Journal of Oral and Maxillofa-cial Surgery 2008;66:1426-38.
30. Genc S, Ozcan M, Titiz A, et al. Development of maxillary accessory ostium following sinusitis in rabbits. Rhinology 2008;46:121-4.
31. Bolger WE, Butzin CA, Parsons DS. Paranasal sinus bony anatomic variations and mucosal abnormalities: CT analysis for endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 1991;101:56-64.
32. Kennedy DW, Zinreich SJ. The functional endoscopic approach to inflammatory sinus disease: current perspective and technique modifications. Am J Rhinol 1988;2:89-96.
33. Stackpole SA, Edelstein DR. The anatomic relevance of the Haller cell in sinusitis. Am J Rhinol 1997;11:219-23.
34. Capelli M, Gatti P. Radiological Study of Maxillary Sinus using CBCT: Relationship between Mucosal Thickening and Common Anatomic Variants in Chronic Rhinosinusitis. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research : JCDR 2016;10:07-10.