Expected Costs of Primary Dental Treatments and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Odontogenic Sinusitis.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) due to apical periodontitis (AP) is highly successful when both dental treatment and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) are performed. Variation exists in the literature with regard to types and timing of dental treatments and ESS when managing ODS. This study modeled expected costs of different primary dental and sinus surgical treatment pathways for ODS due to AP. STUDY DESIGN: Decision-tree economic model. METHODS: Decision-tree models were created based on cost and treatment success probabilities. Using Medicare and consumer online databases, cost data were obtained for the following dental and sinus surgical treatments across the United States: root canal therapy (RCTx), revision RCTx, apicoectomy, extraction, dental implant, bone graft, and ESS (maxillary, ± anterior ethmoid, ± frontal). A literature review was performed to determine probabilities of dental and sinus disease resolution after different dental treatments. Expected costs were determined for primary dental extraction, RCTx, and ESS pathways, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Expected costs for the three different primary treatment pathways when dental care was in-network and all diseased sinuses opened during ESS were as follows: dental extraction ($4,753.83), RCTx ($4,677.34), and ESS ($7,319.85). CONCLUSIONS: ODS due to AP can be successfully treated with primary dental treatments, but ESS is still frequently required. Expected costs of primary dental extraction and RCTx were roughly equal. Primary ESS had a higher expected cost, but may still be preferred in patients with prominent sinonasal symptoms. Patients' insurance coverage may also impact decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 132:1346-1355, 2022.

Diagnosing odontogenic sinusitis: An international multidisciplinary consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is distinct from non-odontogenic rhinosinusitis, and often requires multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers to make the diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to develop international multidisciplinary consensus on diagnosing ODS. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used to assess for expert consensus on diagnosing bacterial ODS. A multidisciplinary panel of 17 authors with ODS expertise from 8 countries (8 otolaryngologists, 9 dental specialists) was assembled. Each author completed 2 of 3 surveys (2 specialty-specific, and 1 for all authors). Thirty-seven clinical statements were created, focusing on 4 important diagnostic components: suspecting ODS; confirming sinusitis in ODS; confirming different dental pathologies causing ODS; and multidisciplinary collaborative aspects of diagnosing ODS. Target audiences were all otolaryngologists and dental providers. RESULTS: Of the 37 clinical statements, 36 reached consensus or strong consensus, and 1 reached no consensus. Strong consensus was reached that certain clinical and microbiologic features should arouse suspicion for ODS, and that multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers is generally required to diagnose ODS. To diagnose ODS, otolaryngologists should confirm sinusitis mainly based on nasal endoscopic findings of middle meatal purulence, edema, or polyps, and dental providers should confirm dental pathology based on clinical examination and dental imaging. CONCLUSION: Based on multidisciplinary international consensus, diagnosing ODS generally requires otolaryngologists to confirm sinusitis, and dental providers to confirm maxillary odontogenic pathology. Importantly, both dental providers and otolaryngologists should suspect ODS based on certain clinical features, and refer patients to appropriate providers for disease confirmation.

Diagnosing odontogenic sinusitis of endodontic origin: A multidisciplinary literature 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.

Management of odontogenic sinusitis: multidisciplinary consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) can present a therapeutic dilemma because multiple treatment strategies have been reported. ODS review articles have been published, but they have lacked multidisciplinary collaboration and an evidence-based methodology. The purpose of this article was to perform an evidence-based review of ODS management options, and develop a multidisciplinary consensus statement on ODS management options. METHODS: An evidence-based review of dental and medical literature on ODS management was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review Databases up to December 2019. Exclusion criteria included non-English-language articles, case series with fewer than 10 patients, fungal sinusitis, and studies that did not report treatment success rates. Because aggregate levels of evidence for recommendations were no higher than level C, a clinical consensus statement was conducted using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met inclusion criteria for the evidence-based review on the following ODS management options: dental treatment alone or combined with ESS for various dental pathologies, and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) alone for dental implant-related ODS. Strong consensus was achieved for 9 of the 10 clinical statements, the strongest being the use of shared decision-making for selecting management strategies. No consensus was reached for determining the extent of ESS necessary for uncomplicated ODS. CONCLUSION: Strong consensus was reached that ODS management should involve shared decision-making between the otolaryngologist, dental provider, and patient, where the benefits and risks of dental treatment and ESS are discussed. Higher-quality studies are necessary to develop evidence-based treatment recommendations for ODS.

Clinical and radiologic findings in a case series of maxillary sinusitis of dental origin.

BACKGROUND: Maxillary sinusitis of dental origin (MSDO) has been described for decades, but tends to be overlooked as a possible cause of chronic sinusitis by both clinicians and radiologists. The incidence of MSDO in published series is reported to be from 10% to 40% in bacterial sinusitis. We present this series to highlight clinical and radiologic indicators of MSDO. METHODS: Databases from the authors' otolaryngology and endodontic practices were reviewed to identify patients who had been seen mutually. Sixty-seven (67) patients were identified. Both authors then reviewed the clinical records and associated computed tomography (CT) scans and determined that 31 patients had MSDO and 2 of had bilateral MSDO, for a total of 33 cases. The clinical and radiologic features related to these cases were then tabulated. RESULTS: The clinical characteristics of the 33 cases of MSDO were as follows: sinus pain (88%), postnasal drainage (64%), congestion (45%), maxillary toothache (39%), and foul drainage (15%). Radiographic CT findings of MSDO showed periapical abscess in 18 cases (55%), periodontal abscess in 3 cases (9%), and no obvious dental pathology in 12 cases (36%). The extent of associated sinusitis was variable from mucoperiosteal thickening to florid unilateral sinusitis involving multiple sinuses. Eighteen maxillary sinuses (55%) were found to have either patent maxillary infundibula or prior surgical antrostomy. Twenty-four patients (77%) had unilateral maxillary sinus disease. CONCLUSION: MSDO should be considered highly likely when radiographic evidence of dental pathology is associated with maxillary sinus disease. Regardless of negative CT evidence of dental pathology, MSDO should be suspected when unilateral maxillary sinus disease is seen, particularly when associated with a patent infundibulum. When MSDO is suspected, a clinical endodontic examination should be performed to rule out or treat an odontogenic etiology.