Evaluation of maxillary sinus anatomical variations and pathologies in elderly, young, posterior dentate and edentulous patient groups with cone-beam computed tomography

• Autorzy: Dedeoglu N. , Altun O.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of maxillary sinus pathologies and anatomic variations in elderly and edentulous patients by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: The study included elderly and young patient groups. The elderly group involved posterior edentulous and dentate patients. CBCT images were assessed, and the presence of any pathological findings, septa, accessory maxillary ostium, and Haller cell in each maxillary sinus were recorded according to the groups. Chi-square test was used to analyse the intergroup differences (p < 0.05). Results: There was no statistically difference between the young and elderly groups regarding the presence of a pathology (p = 0.077) and septa (p = 0.37), whereas accessory ostium (p = 0.009) was more common and Haller cell (p = 0.000) was less common in the elderly group when compared to the young group. There was no significant difference between the edentulous and dentate group regarding the presence of a pathology (p = 0.39), septation (p = 0.69) and Haller cell (p = 0.75); accessory ostium rate was found to be increased (p = 0,015) in edentulous patients. Conclusions: It was observed that the frequency of accessory maxillary ostium was increased in elderly, especially in edentulism. And the frequency of Haller cell was found to be decreased in elderly patients. (Folia Morphol 2019; 78, 3: 595–599)

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Morphologica
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 78
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.595–599,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Dedeoglu N.

• Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dentistry of Faculty, Inonu University, 44280, Malatya, Turkey

autor

Altun O.

• Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dentistry of Faculty, Inonu University, 44280, Malatya, Turkey

Bibliografia

• 1. 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(5): 1289–1292, doi: 10.2214/ajr.174.5.1741289, indexed in Pubmed: 10789779.
• 2. Ali IK, Sansare K, Karjodkar FR, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of accessory maxillary ostium and Haller cells: Prevalence and clinical significance. Imaging Sci Dent. 2017; 47(1): 33–37, doi: 10.5624/isd.2017.47.1.33, indexed in Pubmed: 28361027.
• 3. 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(2): 36–41.
• 4. Del Fabbro M, Rosano G, Taschieri S. Implant survival rates after maxillary sinus augmentation. Eur J Oral Sci. 2008; 116(6): 497–506, doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00571.x, indexed in Pubmed: 19049518.
• 5. 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(2): e383–e386, doi: 10.4317/medoral.15.e383, indexed in Pubmed: 19767706.
• 6. Mathew R, Omami G, Hand A, et al. Cone beam CT analysis of Haller cells: prevalence and clinical significance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 42(9): 20130055, doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20130055, indexed in Pubmed: 23975112.
• 7. Mudgade D, Motghare P, Kunjir G, et al. Prevalence of anatomical variations in maxillary sinus using cone beam computed tomography. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol. 2018; 30(1): 18, doi: 10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_81_17.
• 8. Na Y, Kim K, Kim SK, et al. The quantitative effect of an accessory ostium on ventilation of the maxillary sinus. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2012; 181(1): 62–73, doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2012.01.013, indexed in Pubmed: 22326723.
• 9. Pekiner F, Borahan M, Dumlu A, et al. Infraorbital ethmoid (Haller) cells: a cone-beam computed tomographic study. Oral Radiol. 2014; 30(3): 219–225, doi: 10.1007/s11282-014-0167-3.
• 10. Pelinsari Lana J, Moura Moura Rodrigues P, de Carvalho Machado V, et al. Anatomic variations and lesions of the maxillary sinus detected in cone beam computed tomography for dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23(12): 1398–1403, doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02321.x, indexed in Pubmed: 22092889.
• 11. Pruna X, Ibañez JM, Serres X, et al. Antrochoanal polyps in children: CT findings and differential diagnosis. Eur Radiol. 2000; 10(5): 849–851, doi: 10.1007/s003300051017, indexed in Pubmed: 10823646.
• 12. Qian L, Tian Xm, Zeng Li, et al. Analysis of the morphology of maxillary sinus septa on reconstructed cone-beam computed tomography images. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74(4): 729–737, doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.11.019, indexed in Pubmed: 26707431.
• 13. Rege IC, Sousa TO, Leles CR, et al. Occurrence of maxillary sinus abnormalities detected by cone beam CT in asymptomatic patients. BMC Oral Health. 2012; 12: 30, doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-12-30, indexed in Pubmed: 22883529.
• 14. Ritter L, Lutz J, Neugebauer J, et al. Prevalence of pathologic findings in the maxillary sinus in cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 111(5): 634–640, doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.12.007, indexed in Pubmed: 21444226.
• 15. Schriber M, von Arx T, Sendi P, et al. Evaluating maxillary sinus septa using cone beam computed tomography: is there a difference in frequency and type between the dentate and edentulous posterior maxilla? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32(6): 1324–1332, doi: 10.11607/jomi.5854, indexed in Pubmed: 29140376.
• 16. Shahidi S, Zamiri B, Momeni Danaei S, et al. Evaluation of anatomic variations in maxillary sinus with the aid of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in a population in south of Iran. J Dent (Shiraz). 2016; 17(1): 7–15, indexed in Pubmed: 26966702.
• 17. Som PM. CT of the paranasal sinuses. Neuroradiology. 1985; 27(3): 189–201, doi: 10.1007/bf00344487.
• 18. Stackpole SA, Edelstein DR. The anatomic relevance of the Haller cell in sinusitis. Am J Rhinol. 1997; 11(3): 219–223, indexed in Pubmed: 9209594.
• 19. Tan WC, Lang NP, Zwahlen M, et al. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. Part II: transalveolar technique. J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35(8 Suppl): 241–254, doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01273.x, indexed in Pubmed: 18724853.
• 20. 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: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(6): 1301–1314, doi: 10.11607/jomi.3644, indexed in Pubmed: 25397794.
• 21. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology– Principles and Interpretation. 5th Ed. St. Louis: MO Mosby. 2004.
• 22. 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(12): 4315–4319, doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4129-8, indexed in Pubmed: 27300297.
• 23. Zijderveld SA, van den Bergh JPA, Schulten EA, et al. Anatomical and surgical findings and complications in 100 consecutive maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66(7): 1426–1438, doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.01.027, indexed in Pubmed: 18571027.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2019.0013