Combined Endoscopic and Intraoral Approach or Intraoral Alone in Surgical Management of Odontogenic Sinusitis

Abstract

The physiological behavior of paranasal sinuses depends on the potency of the ostiomeatal complex and on normal mucociliary function. The interruption of this delicate equilibrium can lead to pathological conditions such as sinusitis. Anywhere between 10% and over 25% of cases of maxillary sinusitis have an odontogenic origin, such as: dental infection; alveolar dental trauma; or iatrogenic causes, such as extractions, endodontic therapies, maxillary osteotomies or placement of endosseous implants. The resolution of sinus pathology is related to the resolution of odontogenic pathology. Aim: to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of a combined oral and endoscopic approach in the treatment of chronic odontogenic sinusitis vs. oral dental management through a case control study. Materials and Methods: all patients showing signs and symptoms of odontogenic sinusitis with obliteration (appreciable radiopacity in CT) of unilateral maxillary sinus between January 2018 and September 2019 at Padua University Hospital were enrolled in this retrospective study. The exclusion criteria were: maxillary sinusitis without odontogenic origin, or resolution with a systemic antibiotic therapy; and presence of anatomical abnormalities that promote the onset of rhinosinusitis. The patients were divided into two groups: one group was treated with a combined surgical approach under general anesthesia (Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery-FESS and simultaneous closure of oroantral communication with Bichat’s fat pad advancement); while the other group was treated only with an intraoral approach under local anesthesia and conscious sedation (closure of oroantral communication with Bichat’s fat pad advancement). The variable “success of the surgical procedure” in the two groups was compared by a Student test (with p < 0.05). Results: among the patients enrolled, 10 patients (aged between 42 and 70) made up the case group and the other 10 patients (aged between 51 and 74) constituted the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in success between the two groups (p < 0.025). Conclusions: according to this case study, an exclusive annotation invasive intraoral approach seemed to be comparable to the transoral endoscopic combined method. However, during diagnosis it is necessary and fundamental to distinguish between odontogenic and rhinogenic sinusitis in order for the resolution of odontogenic sinusitis to be achieved.