Background Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OMS) and rhinogenic sinusitis (RS) are the main types of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and have a significant impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL), but the difference in HRQL and symptom presentation between them has not been specifically evaluated to date. Obejctive: Our aim was to compare patterns of symptoms and HRQL disease-specific domains in patients affected with these 2 types of CRS. Methods A group of 201 patients with CRS (99 with rhinogenic and 102 with odontogenic origin) completed the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT-22) questionnaire before treatment. Data sets were analyzed by using principal component analysis (PCA) to identify a set of symptom components together with the items excluded from PCA, which were then analyzed for differences between patients with OMS and RS. Results PCA of SNOT-22 items identified 5 components: “rhinologic,” “extranasal rhinologic,” “ear/facial,” “sleep and functional disturbance,” and “emotional disturbance.” Sneezing was excluded from PCA and treated as separate outcome variable and was significantly worse in RS patients. Patients with OMS scored significantly higher scores with regard to emotional disturbance, while RS patients scored significantly worse in sleep and functional disturbance. The extra symptom “malodor” was the most different symptom and was significantly worse in OMS patients. The total SNOT-22 score was not significantly different between the groups. Conclusion With controlling of covariates that may influence the severity of the disease, this study showed some significant differences in symptom patterns and HRQL impairment between patients with OMS and RS. Malodor is the most characteristic feature of OMS. Therefore, OMS should always be suspected in patients complaining of bad breath.

Background The treatment of chronic odontogenic and nonodontogenic rhinosinusitis is different. It requires the elimination of odontogenic cause and optimal sinus surgical treatment. To date, there are no clear indications when sinus surgical treatment is necessary. Objective Our aim was to define clear indication(s) for sinus surgical treatment in patients with chronic odontogenic rhinosinusitis after elimination of odontogenic cause. Methods A group of 96 patients with chronic odontogenic rhinosinusitis caused by apical periodontitis completed a Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT-22) questionnaire with incorporated additional symptom “malodor” before treatment. Moreover, they were distributed according to computed tomography (CT) radiological criteria such as degree of periapical pathology, anatomical ratio between maxillary lateral teeth and sinus floor, sinus mucosal thickening, and ostiomeatal complex condition. The elimination of odontogenic cause was performed by extracting causative tooth. Questionnaire was filled again 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment. All data were analyzed to search the clear indications for sinus surgical treatment. Results Of 96 patients, 74 (77.1%) patients had full resolution of symptoms after dental cause was eliminated. For other 22 (22.9%) patients, symptoms persisted and sinus surgical treatment was indicated. In recovered group, mean SNOT-22 score was different between all periods of measuring, while within nonrecovered group, small differences were seen only when compared to before treatment. No statistically significant correlation between radiological criteria and rhinosinusitis healing after tooth extraction was found ( P > .05). Statistically significant correlation was found between the disappearance of malodor/SNOT-22 score reduction after elimination of dental cause and healing success ( P < .005). Conclusions Our study revealed that extraction of causative tooth is an effective treatment of chronic odontogenic rhinosinusitis caused by apical periodontitis. CT criteria are not valuable indicator for sinus surgery, but persistence of malodor after 2 weeks is the strongest indication for this type of treatment.

The objective of the study was to compare the ability of dental, ENT and radiology specialists to identify the dental cause of maxillary sinusitis with conventional computed tomography, dental and panoramic radiographs. Out of 34 dental records from subjects treated at ENT and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, LUHS Kaunas Clinics, 22 females and 12 males with the diagnosis of odontogenic maxillary sinusitis, periapical (DPA), panoramic (DPR) and computed tomography (CT) images of posterior maxilla were selected for further studies. In total, 39 sinuses with an odontogenic and 37 sinuses with only rhinogenic cause (control group) were included in the study. Sinuses with mucosal thickening less than 3 mm were excluded from the research. Each image was evaluated by 5 endodontologists, 5 oral surgeons, 6 general dentists, 6 otorhinolaryngologists and an experienced oral radiologist. DPR and DPA views were not evaluated by ENT specialists. The dental cause of maxillary sinusitis was marked according to the given scale. Intraclass correlation coefficient and ROC curve statistical analysis were performed. The best accuracy was observed when CT views were evaluated by experienced oral radiologist and oral surgeons: the AUC was 0.958 and 0.859, respectively. DPR views showed the best accuracy when evaluated by oral surgeons (0.763) and DPA-by endodontologists (0.736). The highest inter-rater agreement was observed between experienced oral radiologist and oral surgeons/otorhinolaryngologists (0.87/0.78) evaluating CT. Sensitivity and specificity of CT were 89.7 and 94.6%, DPR-68.2 and 77.3%, DPA-77.9 and 67%. Identification of dental cause of maxillary sinusitis sometimes is a challenge, which depends on radiological method and, more importantly, on evaluator's experience.

The present study evaluated the porosity distribution of BioRoot RCS/single gutta-percha point (BR/SC) and MTA flow (MF) fillings, which were used as plugs for the apical perforation repair in curved canals of extracted mandibular molars using micro-computed tomography (μCT). Forty mesial root canals of mandibular first molars were shaped with ProTaper NEXT X1–X5 files 2 mm beyond the apex to simulate apical perforations that were randomly divided into two groups (n = 20) according to the material and technique used for the apical plug: BR/SC or MF. The specimens were scanned before and after canal filling at an isotropic resolution of 9.9 μm. The volumetric analysis of voids in the apical 5 mm of the fillings was performed. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.05). Micro-computed tomography (µCT) evaluation revealed significant differences between the groups in terms of porosity: the total volume and percentage volume of voids was lower in the BR/SC group in comparison with the MF group (p < 0.05), with the predominance of open pores in both groups. Neither of the materials and/or application techniques were able to produce void-free root fillings in the apical region of artificially perforated curved roots of mandibular molars.

The objective of this study was to assess the porosity distribution of BioRoot RCS/single gutta-percha point root-canal fillings performed by a general dental practitioner and endodontist. Fourteen plastic models of maxillary premolars with two roots were selected and shaped with HyFlex EDM instruments to a size 40/0.04 taper and randomly divided into two experimental groups. A total of 14 canals in each group were obturated by two different operators with one HyFlex EDM size 40 gutta-percha point and BioRoot RCS sealer. The specimens were scanned with a high-resolution micro-computed tomography scanner, and the porosity of the fillings at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canals was qualified and quantified. The differences between groups and root-canal thirds were compared using Mann–Whitney, Friedman, and Wilcoxon tests with the significance level set at p < 0.05. The highest number of pores was observed in the apical third of root-canal fillings in both groups; however, the porosity distribution between the two groups was not significantly different in the apical and middle thirds (p > 0.05). Statistically significant differences were determined only in the coronal third (p < 0.05). The predominance of open pores was detected in all root-canal thirds and groups, with no significant differences in the number of open pores between the coronal and middle thirds (p > 0.05).