UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA
“JÚLIO DE MESQUITA FILHO”
Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia
Campus de São José dos Campos
ORIGINAL ARTICLE DOI: https://doi.org/10.4322/bds.2025.e4540
1
Braz Dent Sci 2025 Jan/Mar;28 (1): e4540
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic causes
in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Prevalência de sinusite maxilar atribuída a causas odontogênicas em uma subpopulação chilena: um estudo transversal
Fernando PEÑA-BENGOA1 , Juan DÍAZ2 , Sven Eric NIKLANDER3 , Constanza GUERRERO1 , Carolina CÁCERES1 ,
Macarena RODRÍGUEZ-LUENGO4 , Patricio MELÉNDEZ5,6
1 - Universidad Andres Bello, Facultad de Odontología, Departamento de Endodoncia. Viña del Mar, Chile.
2 - Práctica Privada. Viña del Mar, Chile.
3 - Universidad Andres Bello, Facultad de Odontología, Unidad de Patología y Medicina Oral. Viña del Mar, Chile.
4 - Universidad Andres Bello, Facultad de Medicina, Departamento de Morfología. Viña del Mar, Chile.
5 - Universidad Andres Bello, Facultad de Odontología, Departamento de Imagenología Oral y Maxilofacial. Viña del Mar, Chile.
6 - Universidad Viña del Mar, Escuela de Ciencias de la Salud, Odontología. Viña del Mar, Chile.
How to cite: Peña-Bengoa F, Díaz J, Niklander SE, Guerrero C, Cáceres C, Rodríguez-Luengo M, et al. Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis
attributed to odontogenic causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study. Braz Dent Sci. 2025;28(1):e4540. https://doi.
org/10.4322/bds.2025.e4540
ABSTRACT
Background: Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis is a condition caused by dental infections attributed to the close
anatomical proximity that maxillary posterior teeth have with the maxillary sinus. Distinguishing odontogenic
sinusitis from other types of sinusitis is crucial for its accurate treatment, avoiding improper treatments and
multiple consultations. Objective: To analyze the prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic causes
in a Chilean Subpopulation using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Material and Methods: One
hundred and thirty-nine CBCT scans from patients with a previous radiological diagnosis of maxillary sinusitis
were evaluated. Using a multiplanar and panoramic reconstruction, the thickening of one or both maxillary
sinus mucosa was evaluated. The thickness of the sinus mucosa, together with the presence of associated
dental pathologies and/or conditions were also evaluated using sagittal and coronal sections. Results: Of the
139 cases, 54.6% presented a unilateral thickening of the sinus membrane. Of those, 72.4% were associated
with odontogenic factors, indicative of odontogenic sinusitis. The most frequent cause was apical periodontitis
(23.4%), followed by endodontically treated teeth (21.1%). Bilateral mucosal thickening was observed in 45.4%
of all cases. Within this subset, 46% displayed symmetrical mucosal thickening, while 54% showed disparities
exceeding 2 mm. Among these, 44.1% had a superimposed dental pathology attributable to uneven increased
mucosal thickness. Conclusion: Odontogenic etiology is a common cause of maxillary sinusitis, mainly associated
with apical lesions and endodontically treated teeth. The overlay of dental pathology onto bilateral mucosal
thickening patients can result in an exacerbation of the inammatory state within the affected sinus membrane.
KEYWORDS
Chronic sinusitis; Cone beam computed tomography; Maxillary sinus; Odontogenic sinusitis; Schneider’s membrane.
RESUMO
Contexto: A sinusite maxilar odontogênica é uma condição causada por infecções dentárias, atribuída à proximidade
anatômica dos dentes posteriores superiores com o seio maxilar. Distinguir a sinusite odontogênica de outros
tipos de sinusite é crucial para um tratamento adequado, evitando tratamentos incorretos e múltiplas consultas.
Objetivo: Analisar a prevalência de sinusite maxilar atribuída a causas odontogênicas em uma subpopulação
chilena, utilizando exames de tomograa computadorizada de feixe cônico (TCFC). Material e Métodos: Foram
avaliados 139 exames de TCFC de pacientes com diagnóstico radiológico prévio de sinusite maxilar. Através de
2
Braz Dent Sci 2025 Jan/Mar;28 (1): e4540
Peña-Bengoa F et al.
Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Peña-Bengoa F et al. Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic
causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
INTRODUCTION
Maxillary sinusitis is a pathological condition
classically dened as the inammation of the
maxillary sinus mucosa [1]. It can present
itself with a variety of clinical presentation
and can be classified according to different
criteria. Etiologically, it can be classified as
viral, bacterial, or fungal sinusitis [2]. According
to the duration of symptoms, sinusitis can be
classied as acute, subacute, and chronic [3],
and in relation to triggering factors, it can be
categorized as rhinosinusal or odontogenic
sinusitis [2]. Furthermore, other contributing
factors include anatomical abnormalities,
immunodeciency conditions, foreign bodies,
and drug intolerance [4].
Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OMS) is
a disease produced by odontogenic infections
that affect the maxillary sinuses, leading to
inammation of the sinus membrane (SM), better
known as the Schneider´s membrane [5]. OMS is
a consequence of the close anatomical relationship
between the apices of posterior maxillary teeth
and the maxillary sinus oor [6]. It is commonly
associated with infections originated from the
second and rst molars, but infections originated
from premolars, although less commonly, are also
associated [7,8].
The Schneider´s membrane plays a
fundamental role in the health of the maxillary
sinus, acting as a protective barrier against
pathogens and foreign particles [9]. It produces
mucus, facilitating the clearance of sinus
secretions toward the nasal fossa [10], while
also contributing to the filtration, heating,
and purication of inspired air [5]. Given the
anatomical closeness between maxillary posterior
tooth apices and the maxillary sinuses, it is
essential to have a detailed understanding of
their relationship.
OMS usually presents with non-specific
symptoms and the usual pattern of the disease
is a focal and unilateral SM thikening overlying
the apices of the affected tooth [11]. The sign
and symptoms can include nasal obstruction,
purulent rhinorrhea, fatigue, hyposmia, halitosis
and dental pain [2], which is described in only
29% of cases [11]. The most frequently associated
causes are apical periodontitis, periodontal
disease, maxillary surgical complications, and
untreated endodontic infections [12]. Iatrogenic
surgical and endodontic procedures are also a
cause of OMS [10].
The diagnosis of OMS requires a thorough
clinical and imaging examination. Intraoral
and extraoral radiographs, particularly
orthopantomography, offer suboptimal
assessment of the posterior maxillary teeth [11].
The use of cone beam computed tomography
(CBCT) provides three-dimensional images with
low radiation and excellent resolution [13,14],
allowing an accurate assessment of the changes
occurring in the maxillary sinuses, minimizing
distortion and overprojection of structures [14];
a common issue with 2-D images. Considering the
potential exacerbation of unresolved sinusitis by
dental conditions, CBCT scans emerge as a useful
reconstruções multiplanares e panorâmicas, foi avaliada a espessamento da mucosa de um ou ambos os seios
maxilares. A espessura da mucosa sinusal, juntamente com a presença de patologias e/ou condições dentárias
associadas, também foi avaliada por meio de cortes sagitais e coronais. Resultados: Dos 139 casos, 54,6%
apresentaram espessamento unilateral da membrana sinusal. Desses, 72,4% estavam associados a fatores
odontogênicos, indicativos de sinusite odontogênica. A causa mais frequente foi a periodontite apical (23,4%),
seguida por dentes tratados endodonticamente (21,1%). O espessamento bilateral da mucosa foi observado
em 45,4% de todos os casos. Dentro desse subconjunto, 46% apresentaram espessamento mucoso simétrico,
enquanto 54% mostraram diferenças superiores a 2 mm. Entre estes, 44,1% apresentavam uma patologia dentária
sobreposta, atribuível ao aumento desigual da espessura da mucosa. Conclusão: A etiologia odontogênica é uma
causa comum de sinusite maxilar, principalmente associada a lesões apicais e dentes tratados endodonticamente.
A sobreposição de patologias dentárias em pacientes com espessamento bilateral da mucosa pode resultar na
exacerbação do estado inamatório dentro da membrana sinusal afetada.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE
Sinusite crônica; Tomograa computadorizada de feixe cônico; Seio maxilar; Sinusite odontogênica; Membrana
de Schneider.
3
Braz Dent Sci 2025 Jan/Mar;28 (1): e4540
Peña-Bengoa F et al.
Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Peña-Bengoa F et al. Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic
causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
tool for evaluating dental factors associated with
the manifestation of sinusitis [15].
The correlation between sinusitis and
dental problems is often underestimated by
clinicians, leading to erroneous diagnosis,
and consequently, ineffective treatments [5].
This is primarily attributed to the variability
in diagnostic criteria, compounded by a lack
of comprehensive information. Over the past
decade, there has been a concerted effort to
establish recommendations and guidelines for
diagnosing and managing OMS. These guidelines
underscore the importance of collaborative
assessments involving both otolaryngologists
and dentists [16]. Embracing a multidisciplinary
approach not only helps to avoid multiple
consultations, but also optimizes resources and
reduces healthcare costs [5,11].
The available literature provides diverse
information regarding the frequency of OMS
attributed to dental causes in South America,
making it difficult to extrapolate data to the
Chilean population. The aim of this study was to
determine, the frequency and causes of OMS in
a Chilean subpopulation.
METHODOLOGY
This cross-sectional study was approved by
the ethical-scientic committee of the Faculty of
Dentistry of Andres Bello University (Approval
number:158/23).
Sample selection
The sample size was obtained using the
known population formula, applied to the
population of the Valparaíso Region, Chile, using
data obtained from the National Registry of
Statistics of Chile [17], with a condence of 95%
and a signicance of 5%. The expected frequency
of maxillary sinusitis was of 12.3% [18], while
the estimated frequency of OMS was of 50% [5].
The sample size was of 139 CBCT scans.
Image analysis
Image analysis was conducted by a single
operator previously calibrated. Intraoperative
calibration was done analyzing 15 CBCT´s in 2
different occasions by the same operator resulting
in a kappa value was of =0.87.
CBCT scans were obtained from the database
of the Oral and Maxillofacial Imaging Center
of Andres Bello University, Viña del Mar, Chile.
CBCT´s acquired between the years 2020 and
2022 with a resulting diagnosis of “maxillary
sinusitis” in the imaging report were considered
for evaluation. Maxillary sinusitis was diagnosed
when a thickening greater than 2 mm of the
sinus membrane was observed, regardless of
whether they occur unilaterally or bilaterally [12].
Inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years of
age, and complete visualization of both maxillary
sinuses. CBCT´s that presented hydro-aerial levels,
images compatible with retention pseudocysts
and/or polyps, metal or motion artifacts that
prevented visualization of the maxillary sinuses,
were excluded. After the application of the
inclusion/exclusion criteria, a simple random
sampling approach was employed to attain the
predetermined sample size of 139 CBCT scans.
All CBCT scans were acquired using a
GENDEX GXCB-500 equipment (Gendex Dental
Systems, Pennsylvania, USA) and analyzed
through iCAT Vision software (Imaging Sciences
International, Hateld, United States) in a dark
room with regulated brightness and contrast. The
scans were conducted with settings of 120 kV,
5 mA, an exposure time ranging from 12.6 s to
23 s, and an isotropic voxel size of 0.125 mm.
Through multiplanar and panoramic
reconstruction, CBCT scans were systematically
categorized based on the presence of thickening
in the maxillary SM, either unilaterally or
bilaterally. In cases of unilateral SM thickening,
an analysis of the adjacent teeth in the thickened
region was conducted. Utilizing sagittal sections,
the presence of dental pathologies associated
with pathological thickening was determined.
Similarly, in situations where thickening of the
SM was observed in both maxillary sinuses with
a discrepancy exceeding 2 mm in membrane
thickness between the two sinuses, an analysis
of the dental component was undertaken to
identify dental pathologies that could account
for this difference.
For the purposes of this study, a modication
of the diagnostic criteria for maxillary sinusitis
proposed by Maillet et al. [15] was applied whose
classication is based on the unilateral diagnosis
of the maxillary sinuses. Given that our study’s
methodology analyzed both maxillary sinuses
in each CBCT exam and due to the absence
4
Braz Dent Sci 2025 Jan/Mar;28 (1): e4540
Peña-Bengoa F et al.
Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Peña-Bengoa F et al. Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic
causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
of clinical history, the category of “sinusitis of
undetermined origin” was replaced with “sinusitis
from apparent rhinogenous origin” for cases
presenting bilateral sinus membrane thickening
without an associated odontogenic component,
resulting in four categorized groups (Figure 1):
1. Normal sinus:
no mucosal thickening or
uniform mucosal thickening (<2 mm). The
adjacent teeth may be healthy, carious, pulp
exposed, restored, extracted, and with or
without radiographically evident periapical
lesion.
2. Sinusitis of odontogenic origin (OMS):
SM
thickening >2 mm associated with caries,
mismatched restoration, or extraction
site with or without periapical lesion and
mucosal thickening limited to the area of
the tooth or extraction site.
3. Sinusitis of nonodontogenic origin (NOMS):
SM thickening >2 mm not limited to any
tooth. Adjacent teeth are non-carious,
present good quality coronal and/or
endodontic restorations without periapical
lesion or if extracted, healthy healing socket.
4. Sinusitis of apparent rhinogenous origin
(RMS):
Uniform thickening of the sinus
mucosa (>2 mm) observable in both
maxillary sinuses, without a dental cause
observable on imaging, suggesting RMS.
Adjacent teeth are non-carious, present
good quality coronal and/or endodontic
restorations without periapical lesion or if
extracted, healthy healing socket.
An exploratory data analysis was conducted
to obtain the descriptive statistics, and a
proportions test was performed to compare the
frequency of different causes. The data were
analyzed using Stata 11.2 statistical software
(StataCorp LLC, Texas, United States) with a
signicance level of 5%.
RESULTS
Out of the 139 CBCT scans, 54.7% (n=
76) exhibited unilateral MS thickening, whereas
45.3% (n= 63) demonstrated SM thickening
in both maxillary sinuses. Among the subjects,
56.1% were female, and 43.9% were male, with
an average age of 53 ± 11 years.
Among the 76 CBCT scans exhibiting
unilateral thickening of the SM, 72.4% (n= 55)
were associated with dental pathologies (classied
as OMS), while 27.6% (n= 21) had no observable
dental cause (classified as NOMS). Within
the OMS subgroup, periapical lesions were
identied as the most frequent associated cause
(22.37%), followed by endodontically treated
teeth (21.05%) (Figure 2) without signicant
differences between them (Table I).
Figure 1 - Modification of the diagnostic criteria for maxillary sinusitis proposed by Mailletetal. [15]. A: Normal sinus; B: Sinusitis of odontogenic
origin (OMS); C: Sinusitis of nonodontogenic origin (NOMS); D1-D2: Sinusitis from rhinogenous origin (RMS). (Figures obtained and adapted
from Mailletetal. [15]).
5
Braz Dent Sci 2025 Jan/Mar;28 (1): e4540
Peña-Bengoa F et al.
Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Peña-Bengoa F et al. Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic
causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Of the 63 CBCT scans that exhibited
bilateral MS thickening, 46% (n= 29) presented
symmetrical thickening of the sinus membrane (<2
mm) between both maxillary sinuses, suggesting
RMS on imaging in the absence of associated
dental pathology. 54% (n= 34) exhibited
disparities exceeding 2 mm, of which 44.1%
(n= 15) displayed an additional superimposed
dental pathology. In these cases, the thickness of
SM increased in average a 184.6% in compared
to the contralateral maxillary sinus lacking of
this overlay of conditions. In these cases, apical
lesions were the most frequently associated
pathology.
DISCUSSION
Studies investigating the correlation between
pathologies affecting the maxillary sinuses and the
oral cavity become relevant due to the anatomical
proximity of dental apices to the maxillary
sinuses. A recent study reported that 35.4%
of posterior upper teeth either maintain direct
contact with or have protruding roots into
the maxillary sinus [19]. The integration of
CBCT in clinical practice has streamlined the
identication of direct causal associations among
these pathologies [14], thereby enhancing the
precision of diagnoses. This advancement enables
the formulation of treatment strategies that
target the etiological factors rather than merely
addressing the symptomatic manifestations [20].
In this study, we found that 72.4% of the analyzed
CBCT scans that presented unilateral thickening
of the sinus membrane were associated with
odontogenic factors. The most frequent causes
were apical periodontitis and endodontically
treated teeth. Bilateral mucosal thickening
without an associated dental component was
observed in 45.4% of cases, suggesting RMS on
imaging.
When analyzing the studied sample, a slight
predisposition of OMS toward the female gender
(56%) was observed. This predisposition has been
previously reported in the literature [10,14,21],
and according to Arias-Irimia et al. [7], OMS
shows a predilection for the female gender over
the male gender in a ratio of 1/1.3. In contrast, the
average age observed in this study diverges from
the observations made by Arias-Irimia et al. [7],
Figure 2 - CBCT sample images showing dental causes associated with OMS. Arrows indicate: A: apical lesion, B: Endodontic treatment, C:
caries, D: periodontal bone resorption, E: mismatched restoration, and F: undetermined non odontogenic.
Table I - Unilateral Maxillary Sinusitis causes
Causes N % p-value
Undetermined (non odontogenic) 21 27.6 0,3135
Apical lesion 17 22.4 0,4328
Endodontically treated teeth 16 21.1 0,4680
Caries 8 10.5 0,8689
Periodontal bone resorption 8 10.5 0,8689
Mismatched Restoration 6 7.9 0,9587
6
Braz Dent Sci 2025 Jan/Mar;28 (1): e4540
Peña-Bengoa F et al.
Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Peña-Bengoa F et al. Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic
causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Kuligowski et al. [12] and Estrela et al. [21],
who reported lower mean ages of 42.7, 46.6 and
49.4 years respectively. Nevertheless, it is crucial
to note that the limited sample size employed in
our study precludes the formulation of robust
conclusions pertaining to this variable.
OMS is a pathology characterized by a
significant variability in its prevalence, with
reported values ranging from 10% to 86% [22,23],
depending on the methodology and the population
under investigation. A recent study conducted by
Vitali et al. [5], reported that half of all maxillary
sinusitis they observed, were originated from
odontogenic sources. In this respect, we found
a lower frequency of OMS (39.6%). However,
upon analyzing the RMS cases, we observed that a
signicant percentage of these (23.8%) exhibited
an odontogenic component superimposed on this
condition, which may be easily mistaken for OMS.
These outcomes underscore the importance of
considering the odontogenic component, even in
cases of bilateral mucosal thickening, given that
OMS and RMS differ in etiology, microbiology,
and treatment [24]. Failing to recognize this
distinction can pose a risk to the efficacy of
treatment interventions [20].
Periapical lesions have been consistently
reported as the most common cause of
OMS [6,14,21,25-27], which agrees with our
ndings. Peñarrocha-Oltra et al. [6], reported that
the presence of periapical lesions increases the
likelihood of OMS by 1.7 times. It is essential to
underscore that the mere presence of periapical
lesions should not be construed as a definitive
predictor of OMS. Anatomical considerations, such
as the positioning of the apex in relation to the oor
of the maxillary sinus, exhibit a direct correlation
with an elevated likelihood of OMS [11,21].
In the context of endodontic therapy as a
potential causal factor of OMS, it is noteworthy
that both, initial endodontic treatment and
endodontic retreatment, can lead to an increase
in sinus membrane thickness, followed by a
subsequent decrease observed after a 1-year
follow-up period [9]. Consequently, in the absence
of a comprehensive clinical history, endodontic
treatment alone should not be categorically
considered as a causative factor for OMS. Within
our study, 27.63% of cases lacked discernible dental
causes and were consequently classied as NOMS.
The observational nature of our study precludes the
exclusion of early-stage pulp pathologies that may
be associated with sinus pathology [28]. Therefore,
several authors agree that the precise diagnosis of
OMS should combine the CBCT scan with a routine
dental examination [29,30].
Regarding CBCT scans suggestive of RMS
with an overlay of an odontogenic factor, several
studies highlight that a signicant percentage
of patients with apical lesions or marginal
periodontitis exhibit localized inammation of
the sinus membrane [21,31]. This reaction is
construed as a natural response to a low-intensity
infection [20]. The superinfection within a
chronically inflamed membrane may provide
insight into the observed asymmetrical thickening
evident in 44.11% of the cases classied as RMS.
Notably, it was observed that the thickening
of the sinus mucosa exhibited a remarkable
increase of 184.61% in those cases where the
maxillary sinuses were concurrently affected by
a dental pathology. The dysregulation induced
by odontogenic infections in the maxillary sinus
microora can exacerbate chronic inammatory
diseases [32], resulting in a polymicrobial
environment dominated by anaerobic bacteria
originating from the oral cavity [25].
Given that the microbiology of OMS
diverges from other forms of sinusitis [33]
and is characterized by polymicrobial infection
with a preponderance of anaerobes [26,34],
it is imperative to recognize OMS as a distinct
entity within the spectrum of sinusitis [33].
A multidisciplinary approach is essential for
ensuring an accurate diagnosis and implementing
appropriate treatment strategies [16].
A limitation of this study is the lack of
clinical history, as the primary diagnosis of RMS
is clinical, while images are used to consolidate
the diagnosis [35]. Although the methodology
used allowed us to establish direct relationships
between sinus membrane thickening and dental
pathology leading to the diagnosis of OMS, it
may not be entirely accurate in the case of RMS.
Although RMS was considered when presenting
bilateral sinus mucosa inammation, it can also,
less commonly, present unilaterally [36]. This
underscores the importance of managing sinus
pathology by dentists, given the increasingly
frequent use of CBCT as a diagnostic and
treatment planning tool. Future studies may
consider evaluation by more than one observer
to reduce the risk of bias in the interpretation of
image analysis ndings.
7
Braz Dent Sci 2025 Jan/Mar;28 (1): e4540
Peña-Bengoa F et al.
Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Peña-Bengoa F et al. Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic
causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
CONCLUSION
OMS exhibits a high prevalence, showing
a slight predilection for the female gender and
a predominant association with apical lesions.
The overlay of dental pathology onto a bilateral
thickening of the sinus mucosa results in an
exacerbation of the inflammatory state within
the affected sinus membrane. These findings
underscore the importance of comprehensive
diagnostic considerations and interdisciplinary
approaches in understanding and managing OMS.
Acknowledgements
None
Author’s Contributions
FPB: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Conceptualization, Methodology, Project
Administration, Writing – Review & Editing,
Project Administration. JD: Software,
Investigation, Resources, Writing – Original
Draft Preparation. SEN: Methodology, Validation,
Formal Analysis, Investigation, Data Curation,
Writing – Review & Editing. CG and CC:
Validation, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing
– Original Draft Preparation, Supervision, Project
Administration. MRL: Validation, Formal Analysis,
Resources, Data Curation, Writing – Original
Draft Preparation, Funding Acquisition. PM:
Methodology, Software, Validation, Investigation,
Data Curation, Supervision.
Conict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conict
of interest
Funding
None
Regulatory Statement
This study was conducted in accordance with
all guidelines and policies of the local human
subjects oversight committee of the Faculty of
Dentistry, Andrés Bello University. The approval
code for this study is 158/23.
REFERENCES
1. Rosenfeld RM, Piccirillo JF, Chandrasekhar SS, Brook I, Ashok
Kumar K, Kramper M,etal. Clinical practice guideline (update):
adult sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;152(2,
Suppl):S1-39. PMid:25832968.
2. Martu C, Martu MA, Maftei GA, Diaconu-Popa DA, Radulescu
L. Odontogenic sinusitis: from diagnosis to treatment
possibilities-a narrative review of recent data. Diagnostics.
2022;12(7):1600. http://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12071600.
PMid:35885504.
3. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Rautakorpi UM, Borisenko OV, Liira H,
Williams JW Jr, Mäkelä M. Antibiotics for acute maxillary sinusitis
in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(2):CD000243.
PMid:24515610.
4. Rosenfeld RM, Andes D, Bhattacharyya N, Cheung D, Eisenberg
S, Ganiats TG,etal. Clinical practice guideline: adult sinusitis.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137(3, Suppl):S1-31. http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2006.10.032. PMid:17761281.
5. Vitali FC, Santos PS, Massignan C, Maia LC, Cardoso M, Teixeira
CDS. Global prevalence of maxillary sinusitis of odontogenic
origin and associated factors: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. J Endod. 2023;49(4):369-81.e11. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.joen.2023.01.010. PMid:36754253.
6. Peñarrocha-Oltra S, Soto-Peñaloza D, Bagán-Debón L, Bagán-
Sebastián JV, Peñarrocha-Oltra D. Association between maxillary
sinus pathology and odontogenic lesions in patients evaluated
by cone beam computed tomography. A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020;25(1):e34-48.
http://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.23172.
7. Arias-Irimia O, Barona-Dorado C, Santos-Marino J, Martinez-
Rodriguez N, Martinez-Gonzalez J. Meta-analysis of the etiology
of odontogenic maxillary sinusitis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir
Bucal. 2009;15(1):e70-3. http://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.15.e70.
PMid:19767698.
8. Kang SH, Kim BS, Kim Y. Proximity of posterior teeth to
the maxillary sinus and buccal bone thickness: a biometric
assessment using cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod.
2015;41(11):1839-46. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.08.011.
PMid:26411520.
9. Van Den Munckhof T, Patel S, Koller G, Berkhout E, Mannocci F,
Foschi F. Schneiderian membrane thickness variation following
endodontic procedures: a retrospective cone beam computed
tomography study. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):133. http://
doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01122-6. PMid:32375759.
10. Lechien JR, Filleul O, Costa De Araujo P, Hsieh JW, Chantrain
G, Saussez S. Chronic maxillary rhinosinusitis of dental origin:
a systematic review of 674 patient cases. Int J Otolaryngol.
2014;2014:465173. http://doi.org/10.1155/2014/465173.
PMid:24817890.
11. Whyte A, Boeddinghaus R. Imaging of odontogenic sinusitis.
Clin Radiol. 2019;74(7):503-16. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
crad.2019.02.012. PMid:30926134.
12. Kuligowski P, Jaroń A, Preuss O, Gabrysz-Trybek E, Bladowska J,
Trybek G. Association between odontogenic and maxillary sinus
conditions: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomographic
study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(13):2849. http://doi.org/10.3390/
jcm10132849. PMid:34199113.
13. Jain S, Choudhary K, Nagi R, Shukla S, Kaur N, Grover D.
New evolution of cone-beam computed tomography in
dentistry: combining digital technologies. Imaging Sci Dent.
2019;49(3):179-90. http://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2019.49.3.179.
PMid:31583200.
14. Bisla S, Gupta A, Singh H, Sehrawat A, Shukla S. Evaluation
of relationship between odontogenic infections and maxillary
sinus changes: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography-based
study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2022;12(5):645-50. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.08.001. PMid:36045940.
8
Braz Dent Sci 2025 Jan/Mar;28 (1): e4540
Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic
causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Peña-Bengoa F et al.
Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Peña-Bengoa F et al. Prevalence of maxillary sinusitis attributed to odontogenic
causes in a chilean subpopulation: a cross sectional study
Date submitted: 2024 Oct 07
Accept submission: 2025 Feb 06
Sven Eric Niklander
(Corresponding address)
Universidad Andres Bello, Viña del Mar, Chile.
Email: sven.niklander@unab.cl
15. Maillet M, Bowles WR, McClanahan SL, John MT, Ahmad M.
Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of maxillary
sinusitis. J Endod. 2011;37(6):753-7. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joen.2011.02.032. PMid:21787483.
16. Craig JR. Odontogenic sinusitis: a state-of-the-art review. World
J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;8(1):8-15. http://doi.
org/10.1002/wjo2.9. PMid:35619928.
17. BCN [Internet]. Reportes Estadísticos 2020 de Viña
del Mar. Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile; 2023
[cited 2023 Oct 23]. Available from: https://www.bcn.cl/siit/
reportescomunales/comunas_v.html?anno=2020&idcom=5109
18. Albu S. Chronic rhinosinusitis-an update on epidemiology,
pathogenesis and management. J Clin Med. 2020;9(7):2285.
http://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072285. PMid:32708447.
19. Rodríguez M, Richa R, Valenzuela JJ, Niklander S. Relación
entre el seno maxilar y ápices de dientes postero- superiores
con tomografía computarizada de Haz Cónico. Int J Morphol.
2023;41(2):618-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-
95022023000200618.
20. Vestin Fredriksson M, Öhman A, Flygare L, Tano K. When
maxillary sinusitis does not heal: findings on CBCT scans
of the sinuses with a particular focus on the occurrence of
odontogenic causes of maxillary sinusitis. Laryngoscope Investig
Otolaryngol. 2017;2(6):442-6. http://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.130.
PMid:29299521.
21. Estrela CRA, Bueno MR, Estrela MRA, Estrela LRA, Guedes
OA, Azevedo BC,etal. Frequency and risk factors of maxillary
sinusitis of endodontic origin evaluated by a dynamic navigation
and a new filter of cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod.
2022;48(10):1263-72. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2022.07.011.
PMid:35948173.
22. Alghofaily M, Alsufyani N, Althumairy RI, AlSuhaibani A, Alfawzan
F, AlSadhan L. Odontogenic factors associated with maxillary
sinus schneiderian membrane thickness and their relationship
to chronic sinonasal symptoms: an ambispective cohort study.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(16):2710. http://doi.org/10.3390/
diagnostics13162710. PMid:37627969.
23. Bomeli SR, Branstetter BF 4th, Ferguson BJ. Frequency of a
dental source for acute maxillary sinusitis. Laryngoscope.
2009;119(3):580-4. http://doi.org/10.1002/lary.20095.
PMid:19160401.
24. Workman AD, Granquist EJ, Adappa ND. Odontogenic sinusitis:
developments in diagnosis, microbiology, and treatment. Curr
Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;26(1):27-33. http://doi.
org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000430. PMid:29084007.
25. Psillas G, Papaioannou D, Petsali S, Dimas GG, Constantinidis J.
Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis: a comprehensive review. J Dent
Sci. 2021;16(1):474-81. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2020.08.001.
PMid:33384837.
26. Little RE, Long CM, Loehrl TA, Poetker DM. Odontogenic
sinusitis: a review of the current literature. Laryngoscope Investig
Otolaryngol. 2018;3(2):110-4. http://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.147.
PMid:29721543.
27. Mahasneh SA, Al-Hadidi A, Hassona Y, Sawair FA, Al-Nazer
S, Bakain Y, et al. Maxillary sinusitis of odontogenic origin:
prevalence among 3D Imaging—A retrospective study. Appl Sci
(Basel). 2022;12(6):3057. http://doi.org/10.3390/app12063057.
28. Galler KM, Grubmüller V, Schlichting R, Widbiller M, Eidt A,
Schuller C,etal. Penetration depth of irrigants into root dentine
after sonic, ultrasonic and photoacoustic activation. Int Endod
J. 2019;52(8):1210-7. PMid:30828819.
29. Allevi F, Fadda GL, Rosso C, Martino F, Pipolo C, Cavallo G,etal.
Diagnostic criteria for odontogenic sinusitis: a systematic
review. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2021;35(5):713-21. http://doi.
org/10.1177/1945892420976766. PMid:33236664.
30. Melén I, Lindahl L, Andréasson L, Rundcrantz H. Chronic maxillary
sinusitis. Definition, diagnosis and relation to dental infections
and nasal polyposis. Acta Otolaryngol. 1986;101(3-4):320-7.
http://doi.org/10.3109/00016488609132845. PMid:3705956.
31. Ariji Y, Obayashi N, Goto M, Izumi M, Naitoh M, Kurita K,etal. Roots
of the maxillary first and second molars in horizontal relation to
alveolar cortical plates and maxillary sinus: computed tomography
assessment for infection spread. Clin Oral Investig. 2006;10(1):35-41.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0020-5. PMid:16362431.
32. Cho DY, Hunter RC, Ramakrishnan VR. The microbiome
and chronic rhinosinusitis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am.
2020;40(2):251-63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iac.2019.12.009.
PMid:32278449.
33. Saibene AM, Vassena C, Pipolo C, Trimboli M, De Vecchi E,
Felisati G,etal. Odontogenic and rhinogenic chronic sinusitis:
a modern microbiological comparison. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol.
2016;6(1):41-5. http://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21629. PMid:26345711.
34. Yassin‐Kassab A, Bhargava P, Tibbetts RJ, Griggs ZH, Peterson
EI, Craig JR. Comparison of bacterial maxillary sinus cultures
between odontogenic sinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis. Int
Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2021;11(1):40-7. http://doi.org/10.1002/
alr.22627. PMid:32656998.
35. Kim SM. Definition and management of odontogenic maxillary
sinusitis. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;41(1):13. http://
doi.org/10.1186/s40902-019-0196-2. PMid:30989083.
36. Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, Hellings PW, Kern R, Reitsma
S,etal. European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal
Polyps 2020. Rhinology. 2020;58(Suppl S29):1-464. http://doi.
org/10.4193/Rhin20.401. PMid:32077450.
