TÜRK TOPLUMUNDAKİ MAKSİLLER SİNÜS SEPTA VARYASYONLARININ ÜÇ BOYUTLU OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 758 - 762, 31.12.2021

Bilge Karcı Muhammet Karcı

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.809843

Cited By: 1

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; maksiller sinüs cerrahisi öncesinde konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) kullanılarak Türk toplumundaki maksiller sinüs septasının görülme sıklığı, lokalizasyonu ve yönünü değerlendirmek ve bu varyasyonların yaş, cinsiyet ve dental durumla olan ilişkisini incelemektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma grubu, Alanya Ağız ve Diş Sağlığı Merkezi arşivinin retrospektif olarak incelenmesi sonucu elde edilen 290 hastanın (580 maksiller sinüs) KIBT görüntüsünden oluşmuştur. Maksiller sinüs septa sayıları, KIBT görüntülerinin aksiyel kesitlerinde belirlenirken; lokalizasyon, yön ve morfolojileri hem aksiyel hem de sagittal kesitlerde belirlenmiştir. Yaş, cinsiyet ve dental durumun septa varlığı üzerine etkisi istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir (p=0.05).
Bulgular: Hastaların %34.4’ünde en az bir septum görülürken, kadın ve erkek hastalar arasında anlamlı bir farklılık görülmemiştir (p˃0.05). Septumun görülme lokalizasyonu ve yönü sırasıyla; orta bölgede (%43.7) ve koronal yönde (%53.9) olarak belirlenmiştir. Septa varlığı ile yaş ve cinsiyet arasında anlamlı bir ilişki gözlenmezken (p˃0.05), dental durum arasında anlamlı bir ilişki görülmüştür (p˂0.05). Septa yönü ve lokalizasyonu ile diğer parametreler arasında da istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişki görülmemiştir (p˃0.05).
Sonuç: Bulunan yüksek oranlar, maksiller sinüs septa varyasyonlarının diagnozunda KIBT’nin önemini göstermektedir. Bu nedenle; maksiller arka bölgedeki cerrahi müdahalelerin başarısını arttırmak ve olası komplikasyonları önlemek için bölgenin KIBT ile değerlendirilmesi son derece önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi, Maksiller sinüs, Septa.

THREE DIMENSIONAL EVALUATION OF MAXILLARY SINUS SEPTA VARIATIONS IN A TURKISH POPULATION

Öz

Background: The purpose of this study to evaluate the frequency, localization and direction of the maxillary sinus septa in a Turkish population and to examine the relationship between these variations with age, gender and dental condition, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) prior to maxillary sinus surgery.
Methods: 290 CBCT images (Planmeca Romexis, 3D Mid Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland) (580 maxillary sinüs) were chosen from the archive of Alanya Oral and Dental Health Center. The number of maxillary sinüs septa was determined on axial sections of CBCT images. Their locations and orientations were determined on both the axial and sagittal sections and their heights were determined only on the sagittal sections. The influence of the age, gender and dental status on the presence of septa was statistically analysed (p=0.05).
Results: While at least one septum was observed in 34.4% of the patients, there was no significant difference between male and female patients (p˃0.05). The localization and direction of the septum, respectively; in the central region (43.7%) and in the coronal direction (53.9%). While there was no significant relationship between the presence of septa and age and gender (p˃0.05), a significant relationship was observed between the dental condition (p˂0.05). There was no statistically significant relationship between septa direction and localization and other parameters (p˃0.05).
Conclusion: These high rates of findings support the importance of CBCT in the diagnosis of the variations of the maxillary sinüs septa. Therefore, it is important to evaluate CBCT images of the relevant region to increase the success of surgical interventions in the maxillary posterior region and to eliminate possible complications.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cone-beam computed tomography, Maxillary sinüs, Septa

Kaynakça

• 1. Irinakis T, Dabuleanu V, Aldahlawi S. Complications during maxillary sinus augmentation associated with interfering septa: a new classification of septa. Open Dent J 2017; 11: 140–50.
• 2. Rancitelli D, Borgonovo AE, Cicciu M, Re D, Rizza F, Frigo AC, Maiorana C. Maxillary sinus septa and anatomic correlation with the Schneiderian membrane. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26: 1394–8.
• 3. Sanjay M, Ernest L. White Pharoah Oral Radiology Principles and interpretation, 8th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby, 2018.
• 4. Chanavaz M. Maxillary sinus. Anatomy, physiology, surgery, and bone grafting related to implantology-Eleven years of surgical experience (1979-1990). J Oral Implantol 1990; 16: 199-209.
• 5. Ulm CW, Solar P, Krennmair G, Matejka M, Watzek G. Incidence and suggested surgical management of septa in sinus lift procedures. Int Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 462-5.
• 6. Garg AK. Augmentation grafting of the maxillary sinus for placement of DentalImplants. Anatomy, physiology, and procedures. Implant Dent 1999; 8: 36–46.
• 7. Kasabah S, Slezak R, Simunek A, Krug J, Lecaro MC. Evaluation of the accuracy of panoramic radiograph in the definition of maxillary sinus septa. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) 2002; 45: 173-5.
• 8. Orhan K, Kusakci Seker B, Aksoy S, Bayindir H, Berberoğlu A, Seker E. Cone beam CT evaluation of maxillary sinus septa prevalence, height, location and morphology in children and an adult population. Med Princ Pract 2013; 22(1): 47–53.
• 9. Jang SY, Chung K, Jung S, Park HJ, Oh HK, Kook MS. Comparative study of the sinus septa between dentulous and edentulous patients by cone beam computed tomography. Implant Dent 2014; 23(4): 477–81.
• 10. White SC. Cone-beam imaging in dentistry. Health Phys 2008; 95: 628-37.
• 11. Amuk M, Yılmaz S. Bir diş hekimliği fakültesinde konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi tetkiki istenmesinin sebepleri. Atatürk Üni Diş Hek Fak Derg 2019; 29: 543-9.
• 12. Sakhdari S, Panjnoush M, Eyvazlou A, Niktash A. Determination of the prevalence, height, and location of the maxillary sinus septa using cone beam computed tomography. Implant Dent 2016; 25(3): 335–40.
• 13. Tadinada A, Jalali E, Al-Salman W, Jamb-hekar S, Katechia B, Almas K. Prevalence of bony septa, antral pathology, and dimensions of the maxillary sinus from a sinus augmen-tation perspective: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 109–15.
• 14. Bornstein MM, Seiffert C, Maestre-Ferrin L, Fodich I, Jacobs R, Buser D, von Arx T. An analysis of frequency, morphology, and loca-tions of maxillary sinus septa using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31: 280–7.
• 15. Hungerbühler A, Rostetter C, Lübbers H-T, Rücker M, Stadlinger B. Anatomical characteristics of maxillary sinus septa visualized by cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 48(3): 382-87.
• 16. Schwarz L, Schiebel V, Hof M, Ulm C, Watzek G, Pommer B. Risk factors of membrane perforation and postoperative complications in sinus floor elevation surgery: review of 407 augmentation procedures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 73: 1275–82.
• 17. Al-Dajani M. Incidence, risk factors, and complications of Schneiderian membrane perforation in sinus lift surgery: a metaanalysis. Implant Dent 2016; 25: 409–15.
• 18. Becker ST, Terheyden H, Steinriede A, Behrens E, Springer I, Wiltfang J. Prospective observation of 41 perforations of the Schneiderian membrane during sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 1285–9.
• 19.von Arx T, Fodich I, Bornstein MM, Jensen SS. Perforation of the sinus membrane during sinus floor elevation: a retrospective study of frequency and possible risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 718–26.
• 20. Ozeç I, Kılıç E, Müderris S. Maxillary sinus septa: Evaluation with computed tomography and Panoramic radiography. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 2008; 11: 82–6.
• 21. Shen EC, Fu E, Chiu TJ, Chang V, Chiang CY, Tu HP. Prevalence and location of maxillary sinus septa in the Taiwanese population and relationship to the absence of molars. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23(6): 741–5.
• 22. Naenni N, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Attin T, Wiedemeier DB, Sapata V, Ha¨mmerle CHF, Jung RE. Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2018; 97: 887–9