-
Journal of Dental Sciences Jan 2021Artificial intelligence (AI) has made deep inroads into dentistry in the last few years. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the development of AI... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
Artificial intelligence (AI) has made deep inroads into dentistry in the last few years. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the development of AI applications that are widely employed in dentistry and evaluate their performance in terms of diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and predicting the prognosis of the treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The literature for this paper was identified and selected by performing a thorough search in the electronic data bases like PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Google scholar, Scopus, Web of science, and Saudi digital library published over the past two decades (January 2000-March 15, 2020).After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 43 articles were read in full and critically analyzed. Quality analysis was performed using QUADAS-2.
RESULTS
AI technologies are widely implemented in a wide range of dentistry specialties. Most of the documented work is focused on AI models that rely on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and artificial neural networks (ANNs). These AI models have been used in detection and diagnosis of dental caries, vertical root fractures, apical lesions, salivary gland diseases, maxillary sinusitis, maxillofacial cysts, cervical lymph nodes metastasis, osteoporosis, cancerous lesions, alveolar bone loss, predicting orthodontic extractions, need for orthodontic treatments, cephalometric analysis, age and gender determination.
CONCLUSION
These studies indicate that the performance of an AI based automated system is excellent. They mimic the precision and accuracy of trained specialists, in some studies it was found that these systems were even able to outmatch dental specialists in terms of performance and accuracy.
PubMed: 33384840
DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.06.019 -
International Journal of Implant... May 2023To assess the outcome [zygomatic implant (ZI) survival] and complications of the original surgical technique (OST) and an Anatomy-Guided approach (AGA) in the placement... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To assess the outcome [zygomatic implant (ZI) survival] and complications of the original surgical technique (OST) and an Anatomy-Guided approach (AGA) in the placement of ZI in patients with severely atrophic maxillae.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search from January 2000 to August 2022. The inclusion criteria were articles reporting at least five patients with severely atrophic edentulous maxilla undergoing placement OST and/or AGA, with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. Number of patients, defect characteristics, number of ZI, implant details, surgical technique, survival rate, loading protocol, prosthetic rehabilitation, complications, and follow-up period were compared.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies comprised 2194 ZI in 918 patients with 41 failures. The ZI survival rate was 90.3-100% in OST and 90.4-100% in AGA. Probability of complications with ZI with OST was as follows: sinusitis, 9.53%; soft tissue infection, 7.50%; paresthesia, 10.78%; oroantral fistulas, 4.58%; and direct surgical complication, 6.91%. With AGA, the presenting complications were as follows: sinusitis, 4.39%; soft tissue infection, 4.35%; paresthesia, 0.55%; oroantral fistulas, 1.71%; and direct surgical complication, 1.60%. The prevalence of immediate loading protocol was 22.3% in OST and 89.6% in the AGA. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, statistical comparison was only possible after the descriptive analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current systematic review, placing ZI in severely atrophic edentulous maxillae rehabilitation with the OST and AGA is associated with a high implant survival rate and surgical complications within a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Complications, including sinusitis and soft tissue infection around the implant, are the most common. The utilization of immediate loading protocol is more observed in AGA than in OST.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Maxilla; Jaw, Edentulous; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications; Sinusitis; Soft Tissue Infections; Orthognathic Surgical Procedures; Male; Female; Child, Preschool; Child; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged
PubMed: 37198345
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-023-00478-y -
Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal Dec 2015Maxillary sinusitis is an important issue in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery. This study aims to present a systematic review of etiologies and treatments of... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Maxillary sinusitis is an important issue in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery. This study aims to present a systematic review of etiologies and treatments of odontogenic maxillary sinusitis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
An electronic database search was performed based on related MeSH keywords. Articles published between January 2001 and December 2014 was selected according to the inclusion criteria. The information extracted from various studies was categorized in various tables.
RESULTS
The study selected 19 studies. In most studies, oroantral fistula (OAF) was the most common etiology of odontogenic sinusitis. Alpha-hemolytic streptococcus was the most common flora in sinusitis with dental origin. The literature shows that the Caldwell-Luc approach may be the best method for treating sinusitis in cases of displaced teeth.
CONCLUSIONS
OAF is a common cause of odontogenic maxillary sinusitis and may easily be treated by endoscopy and fistula closure. Maxillofacial surgeons and dentists should consider this problem to avoid misdiagnosis and prevent complications.
PubMed: 26756016
DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.25536 -
International Journal of Oral and... May 2022Sinus graft infections are rare but serious complications, as they are associated with significant morbidity and sinus graft loss. The aim of this study was to... (Review)
Review
Sinus graft infections are rare but serious complications, as they are associated with significant morbidity and sinus graft loss. The aim of this study was to systematically review the management of sinus graft infection in order to define which protocols should be implemented. The terms searched in each database were "sinus graft infection management", "maxillary sinus lift infection", "maxillary sinus graft infection", "maxillary sinus elevation infection", and "maxillary sinus augmentation infection". The management of the sinus graft infection was assessed. The outcomes evaluated were maxillary sinus health and dental implantation results. The initial search yielded 1190 results. Eighteen articles were included, reporting a total of 3319 patients and 217 sinus graft infections. Drainage was performed with an intraoral approach in 13 studies, an endoscopic approach in two studies, and a combined approach in three studies. In every study, a disease-free sinus was finally obtained in all patients, but the outcomes of the graft and the dental implant were more varied. It is not possible to define the best treatment protocol for sinus graft infections based on the published data, since the level of evidence is poor. Management is very heterogeneous. This review highlights the necessity of surgical treatment associated with antibiotic therapy.
Topics: Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Maxillary Sinus; Maxillary Sinusitis; Postoperative Complications; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Sinusitis
PubMed: 34556376
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.09.007 -
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Jul 2022Implantological procedures aimed at rehabilitating upper jaw edentulous patients (dental implant placement and/or maxillary sinus grafting) can sporadically result in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Implantological procedures aimed at rehabilitating upper jaw edentulous patients (dental implant placement and/or maxillary sinus grafting) can sporadically result in sinusitis. In these patients, endoscopic sinus surgery is the most commonly employed treatment, but clinical scenarios and comprehensive management strategies are extremely heterogeneous across studies.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to systematically define treatment strategies and related success rates for sinusitis following dental implantation, detailing different current treatment choices and concepts.
METHODS
Adopting a PRISMA-compliant review framework, systematic searches were performed in multiple databases using criteria designed to include all studies published until November 2020 focusing on the treatment of human sinusitis following dental implantation. We selected all original studies, excluding case reports, specifying treatment modalities with objective treatment success definitions. Following duplicate removal, abstract and full-text selection, and quality assessment, we reviewed eligible articles for treatment modalities and success rates, which were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Among 581 unique citations, eight studies (181 patients) were selected. Seven studies were retrospective case series. All studies relied on endoscopic sinus surgery, often coupled with intraoral accesses, and assessed therapeutic success endoscopically. The pooled treatment success rate was 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 91.5%-98%). Failures were treated in seven of 15 cases with further antibiotic therapies and in another seven cases with surgical revision. A single patient was lost to follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic sinus surgery appears to be the most frequent treatment of choice for sinusitis following dental implantation, with excellent success rates. The protean clinical picture drawn from the selected studies calls for the standardization of diagnostics and definitions in this field to enable direct comparisons between the results of different studies. The role of postoperative antibiotic therapies, which have been employed unevenly across studies, should also be prospectively investigated.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Sinusitis; Maxillary Sinus; Endoscopy; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dental Implantation; Maxillary Sinusitis; Dental Implants
PubMed: 35244478
DOI: 10.1177/19458924221084484 -
American Journal of Otolaryngology 2021Endodontic disease is one of the most common causes of bacterial odontogenic sinusitis (ODS). Diagnosing ODS of endodontic origin involves otolaryngologists confirming... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Endodontic disease is one of the most common causes of bacterial odontogenic sinusitis (ODS). Diagnosing ODS of endodontic origin involves otolaryngologists confirming sinusitis, and dental specialists confirming endodontic sources. The purpose of this study was to conduct a multidisciplinary literature review to highlight clinical and microbiological features of ODS, and the most optimal diagnostic modalities to confirm endodontic disease.
METHODS
An extensive review of both medical and dental literature was performed by rhinologists, endodontists, and an infectious disease specialist. Frequencies of various clinical and microbiological features from ODS studies were collected, and averages were calculated. Different endodontic testing and imaging modalities were also evaluated on their abilities to confirm endodontic disease.
RESULTS
ODS patients most often present with unilateral sinonasal symptoms for over 3 months, purulence on nasal endoscopy, and overt dental pathology on computed tomography (CT). Subjective foul smell, and maxillary sinus cultures demonstrating anaerobes and α-streptococci (viridans group) may be more specific to ODS. For endodontic evaluations, cold pulp testing and cone-beam CT imaging are most optimal for confirming pulpal and periapical disease.
CONCLUSION
Diagnosing ODS requires collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental specialists. Clinicians should suspect ODS when patients present with unilateral sinonasal symptoms, especially foul smell. Patients will generally have purulent drainage on nasal endoscopy, and both sinus opacification and overt dental pathology on CT. However, some patients will have subtle or absent dental pathology on CT. For suspected endodontic disease, endodontists should be consulted for at least cold pulp testing, and ideally cone-beam CT.
Topics: Adult; Bacterial Infections; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Female; Humans; Male; Maxillary Sinusitis; Middle Aged; Pulpitis; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Viridans Streptococci
PubMed: 33486208
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.102925 -
Journal of Endodontics Apr 2023The overall prevalence of maxillary sinusitis of odontogenic origin (MSOO) is still unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of MSOO and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The overall prevalence of maxillary sinusitis of odontogenic origin (MSOO) is still unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of MSOO and verify associations between different odontogenic conditions and MSOO.
METHODS
Six electronic databases and the gray literature were searched on August 25, 2022. Two independent reviewers selected observational studies reporting the prevalence of MSOO and associated conditions in adults. Studies that did not use computed tomography for diagnosis were excluded. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cross-Sectional Studies. Data were analyzed by proportion and association meta-analyses. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies were included in the qualitative analysis and thirty-one in the meta-analyses. Only 12 studies (31.6%) fulfilled all items of the methodological quality checklist. Overall, the studies reported prevalence measures per maxillary sinus or patient. Thus, the pooled prevalence of MSOO was 51% per sinus (95% confidence interval [CI] [40%-61%]) and 50% per patient (95% CI [41%-59%]). Apical lesion (odds ratio [OR]: 4.03, 95% CI [2.26-7.19]), periodontitis (OR: 5.49, 95% CI [2.27-13.24]), moderate (OR: 2.57, 95% CI [1.85-3.57]) and severe bone loss (OR: 13.80, 95% CI [2.81-67.85] were significantly associated with MSOO. The certainty of the evidence for the associations was very low.
CONCLUSIONS
The pooled prevalence of MSOO on computed tomography assessment was 51% per maxillary sinus and 50% per patient. Therefore, half of the maxillary sinusitis may be of odontogenic origin. Apical lesion, periodontitis, and moderate and severe bone loss were significantly associated with MSOO.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Maxillary Sinusitis; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Maxillary Sinus; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 36754253
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2023.01.010 -
Implant Dentistry Aug 2016Implant displacement into the maxillary sinus often results from features specific to the posterior maxillary teeth, including poor bone quality and insufficient... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Implant displacement into the maxillary sinus often results from features specific to the posterior maxillary teeth, including poor bone quality and insufficient remaining bone. This study reviews implants displaced into the maxillary sinus, the causes and complications of displacement, and how to remove them, according to when the displacement occurs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), and EMBASE databases were searched using the keywords "displacement," "implant," "maxillary sinus," and "removal" for articles published between January 2000 and July 2013.
RESULTS
Twenty-two journal articles were selected; these discussed 49 displaced implants. Most of the implants were displaced into the maxillary sinus during implantation, but resulted in a low incidence of complications, such as maxillary sinusitis. The displaced implants were removed using the Caldwell-Luc approach or a transoral or transnasal endoscopic approach.
CONCLUSION
Implants displaced into the maxillary sinus have various causes according to when they are displaced. As displaced implants can cause several complications, transnasal endoscopy is recommended to remove them; however, the implants should be examined thoroughly before selecting the removal method.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Maxillary Sinus
PubMed: 26974033
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000408 -
Journal of Clinical and Translational... Feb 2022With the second wave of COVID-19, there has been a substantial rise in opportunistic infections like mucormycosis. Mucormycosis is a fatal fungal infection and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
With the second wave of COVID-19, there has been a substantial rise in opportunistic infections like mucormycosis. Mucormycosis is a fatal fungal infection and understanding the associated risk factors and their management plays a key role to reduce mortality and morbidity caused due to such infections. This systematic review was conducted to assess the risk factors, clinical characteristics and to understand the pathogenesis of COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM) affecting the head-and-neck region.
METHODS
The PubMed database was searched with the keywords; ((Mucormycosis) OR (invasive fungal sinusitis)) AND (COVID-19) and the PRISMA chart was prepared for the selection of the reports based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
A total of 261 cases of CAM affecting the head-and-neck region were analyzed in this systematic review. Most of the patients presented with rhino-orbital/rhino-orbito-cerebral form of mucormycosis (rhino-orbital mucormycosis/rhino-orbital-cerebral mucormycosis). Pulmonary mucormycosis along with rhino-orbital form, involvement of hard palate, and maxillary sinus was seen in one case each. A total of 224 (85.8%) patients were diabetic, 68 (30.3%) of them had poor glycemic control. Steroids were administered in 210 (80.4%) patients. Except for two, antifungal treatment was given to all patients. Follow-up data revealed 67 (25.6%) deaths and 193 (73.9%) were alive with one patient lost during follow-up.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this systematic review suggested that the occurrence of mucormycosis in COVID-19 patients is related to the inherent effects of COVID-19 infection on the immune system, comorbidities especially diabetes, and treatment aspects. Hence, a detailed understanding of these factors may aid in the personalized management of CAM and improve the disease outcome.
RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS
The risk factors in patients affected by CAM should be recognized and closely monitored in post-COVID-19 patients. A multidisciplinary team must be in place to reduce the mortality and morbidity in such patients.
PubMed: 35187287
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related... Dec 2022This systematic review aimed to investigates the types and incidences of complications following sinus floor elevations (SFE) along with their prevention and management... (Review)
Review
AIM
This systematic review aimed to investigates the types and incidences of complications following sinus floor elevations (SFE) along with their prevention and management strategies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic database and hand search were conducted to screen the literature published from January 1960 to June 2021. The selected studies had to report well-described SFE techniques, complications during, and post-SFE. Data extraction included types of SFE techniques, complications, and their treatment strategies.
RESULTS
A total of 74 studies with 4411 SFE procedures met the inclusion criteria. Different SFE techniques demonstrated varying patterns for both complications and complication rates. Postoperative pain, swelling, and edema were widely reported. The most common complications that required intervention following Lateral SFE (LSFE) were sinus membrane perforation (SMP), wound dehiscence, graft exposure and failure, and sinusitis. LSFE had more SMPs and sinusitis cases compared with a transcrestal SFE (TSFE). The presence of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo following TSFE was significant in certain selected studies.
CONCLUSION
Given the inherent limitations, this systematic review showed distinct features of complications in SFE using varying techniques. Treatment planning for these procedures should incorporate strategies to avoid complication occurrence.
Topics: Humans; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Maxillary Sinus; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Transverse Sinuses; Postoperative Complications; Dental Implants
PubMed: 35737681
DOI: 10.1111/cid.13086