An Assessment of the Relationship between the Maxillary Sinus Floor and the Maxillary Posterior Teeth Root Tips Using Dental Cone-beam Computerized Tomography

Abstract

Objectives:The aim of the present study was to assess the relationship between the maxillary sinus floor and the maxillary posterior teeth root tips using dental cone-beam CT.Methods:A total of 87 right and 89 left maxillary sinus regions from 92 patients were examined using dental cone-beam CT. Images were analyzed by a specialist in oral and maxillofacial radiology. Perpendicular lines were drawn on the cross-sectional images between the deepest point of the maxillary sinus floor and the root tips of the maxillary first and second premolars and first, second and third molars, and the distances were measured using built-in measurement tools. Means, standard deviations and minimum and maximum values were calculated for all right and left premolars and molars. T-tests were used to compare measurements between left and right sides and between female and male patients.Results:The distance between sinus floor and root tip was longest for the first premolar root tip and shortest for the second molar buccodistal root tip for both right and left sides. No statistically significant differences were found between the right and left side measurements or between female and male patients (P>.05).Conclusions:Knowledge of the anatomical relationship between the maxillary sinus floor and the maxillary posterior teeth root tips is important for the preoperative treatment planning of maxillary posterior teeth.

Assessment of the relationship between the maxillary molars and adjacent structures using cone beam computed tomography

“…The most frequent relationship in previous studies was that the sinus floor did not contact the roots of the molars 1,8,9. Meanwhile, apical protrusion into the maxillary sinus (Type 3) of one or more roots of the molars was most frequent in our study although the roots being separate from the sinus (Type 0) was most frequent in each root of the molars.…”

“…Most studies have revealed that the buccal roots of M2 are closely related to the floor of the maxillary sinus 1,8,10-12. Eberhardt et al8 and Georgescu et al12 reported that the mesiobuccal roots of M2 were closest to the sinus floor, and Kilic et al1 reported that the distobuccal root of M2 was closest to the sinus floor.…”

“…Eberhardt et al8 and Georgescu et al12 reported that the mesiobuccal roots of M2 were closest to the sinus floor, and Kilic et al1 reported that the distobuccal root of M2 was closest to the sinus floor. Our results showed that the distance between the sinus floor and the root of the molar was shortest for the mesiobuccal roots of M2, for which Type 3 was most frequent and longest for the palatal roots of M2, for which Type 0 was most frequent.…”

Effects of clinical local factors on thickness and morphology of Schneiderian membrane: A retrospective clinical study

“…Contradictory, no significant difference of thickness of Schneiderian membrane between genders was also reported by other authors. 23,25 In this study, the most frequently detected membrane abnormality was flat-type thickening (21% of the CBCT scans 26,27 Similar to the previous study, mesiobuccal root apexes of the second molar were frequently penetrating the sinus floor. 26 It should be mentioned that an association between the prevalence of maxillary sinus mucosal thickening and the anatomical relationship between the sinus floor and posterior teeth root apexes was previously reported.…”

Assessment of Proximity of Maxillary Molars Roots to the Maxillary Sinus Floor in a Sample from the Egyptian Population using Cone-beam Computed Tomography (Hospital Based Study)

“…However, another different classification was done by Kilic et al 2010 35 who classified the targeted relationship on CBCT images to only three types 1, 2& 3 with type 1 representing roots penetrating MSF, type 2 representing roots contacting MSF and type 3 representing roots not reaching MSF, then this classification was used again by Ok et al 2014 36 on CBCT images of Turkish population. Later on, in 2016 Tian et al 37 .…”