Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.22
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2015, vol. 52, nr 1, January-March, p. 17–21

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Evaluation of Risk Factors for Oroantral Communication During the Extraction of Third Upper Molar

Ocena czynników ryzyka połączenia ustno-zatokowego podczas ekstrakcji trzecich górnych zębów trzonowych

Katarzyna Lewusz1,B,C,D, Tomasz Smektała1,E, Michał Lesiakowski1,A, Filip Butkiewicz1,C,D, Paweł Natora1,B, Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak1,E,F

1 Department of Dental Surgery, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland


Background. Oroantral communication (OAC) is a common complication of tooth extraction, including the removal of upper third molar (UTM). Orthopantomograms (OPG) may be used to assess the position of UTM and to detect patients at high risk for OAC.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to use OPG to identify patients at risk of OAC after the extraction of UTM.
Material and Methods. Patients who underwent UTM extraction were divided into two groups. The study group consisted of 13 patients with OAC. The control group comprised of 50 subjects without OAC. Subsequently, OPG of all participants, taken before extraction, were analyzed retrospectively by SCANORA software version 5.1. The analysis included following variables: position of teeth 18 and 28 (according to Archer Third Molar Classification), distance between the apex of the maxillary third molar and the floor of the maxillary sinus, position of UTM in relation to the cemento-enamel junction of the adjacent second molar.
Results. In the study group, 92.1% of teeth 18 and 28 were in direct contact with the floor of the maxillary sinus. The type “d” of tooth impaction, according to Archer Third Molar Classification, significantly increased the risk of OAC (OR = 14.7; Cl (95%) = 1.4–156.2; p = 0.03). However, in the study group type “3a” was detected more frequently (15.9%).
Conclusion. The type “d” of tooth impaction, according to Archer Third Molar Classification has a significant impact on the occurrence of OAC during extraction of UTM.

Key words

radiography, upper molars, oral sinus communications

Słowa kluczowe

trzecie górne zęby trzonowe, połączenie ustno-zatokowe, radiografia

References (18)

  1. Sharan A., Madjar D.: Correlation between maxillary sinus floor topography and related root position ofposterior teeth using panoramic and cross-sectional computed tomography imaging. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2006, 102, 357–381.
  2. Netter F.H.: Atlas of human anatomy. Saunders, Philadelphia, 2010, 5th ed., 318–342.
  3. Kilic C., Kamburoglu K., Yuksel S.P., Ozen T.: An assessment of the relationship between the maxillary sinusfloor and the maxillary posterior teeth root tips using dental cone-beam computerized tomography. Eur. J. Dent. 2010, 4, 462–467.
  4. Kitagawa Y., Sano K., Nakamura M., Ogasawara T.: Use of third molar transplantation for closure of the oro-antral communication after tooth extraction: a report of 2 cases. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2003, 95, 409–415.
  5. Chiapasco M., De Cicco L., Marrone G.: Side effects and complications associated with third molar surgery. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1993, 76, 412–420.
  6. Güven O.: A clinical study on oroantral fistulae. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 1998, 26, 267–271.
  7. Del Rey-Santamaría W., Valmaseda-Castellón E., Berini-Aytés L., Gay-Escoda C.: Incidence of oral sinuscommunications in 389 upper third molar extraction. Med Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2006, 11, e334–338.
  8. Fragiskos F.D.: Oral surgery. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 2007, 155–157.
  9. Lim A.A.T., Wong C.W., Allen J.C.: Maxillary third molar: patterns of impaction and their relation to oroantral perforation. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 70, 1035–1039.
  10. Hernando J., Gallego L., Junquera L., Villarreal P.: Oroantral communications. A retrospective analysis. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2010, 15, e499–503.
  11. Batra H., Jindal G., Kaur S.: Evaluation of different treatment modalities for closure of oro-antral communications and formulation of a rational approach. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2010, 9, 13–18.
  12. Segura-Egea J.J., Alonso-Ezpeleta O., Martín-González J., Martín-Jiménez M.: Endodontic treatment failure consecutive to unsystematic radiographic examination. Oral Health Dent. Manag. 2013, 12, 300–304.
  13. Ridao-Sacie C., Segura-Egea J.J., Fernández-Palacín A., Bullón-Fernández P., Ríos-Santos J.V.: Radiologicalassessment of periapical status using the periapical index: comparison of periapical radiography and digitalpanoramic radiography. Int. Endod. J. 2007, 40, 433–440.
  14. Oberli K., Bornstein M.M., von Arx T.: Periapical surgey and the maxillary sinus: radiographic parameters for clinical outcome. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2007, 103, 848–853.
  15. Bouquet A., Coudert J.L., Bourgeois D., Mazoyer J.F., Bossard D.: Contributions of reformatted computed tomography and panoramic radiography in the localization of third molars relative to the maxillary sinus. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2004, 98, 342–347.
  16. Carrafiello G., Dizonno M., Colli V., Strocchi S., Pozzi Taubert S., Leonardi A., Giorgianni A., Barresi M., Macchi A., Bracchi E., Conte L., Fugazzola C.: Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol. Med. 2010, 115, 600–611.
  17. Shin H.S., Nam K.C., Park H., Choi H.U., Kim H.Y., Park C.S.: Effective doses from panoramic radiography and CBCT (cone beam CT) using dose area product (DAP) in dentistry. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2014, 43, 20130439.
  18. Choi J.W.: Assessment of panoramic radiography as a national oral examination tool: review of the literature. Imaging Sci. Dent. 2011, 41, 1–6.