Maxillary Antrostomy Versus Complete Sinus Surgery for Odontogenic Sinusitis With Frontal Sinus Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is often necessary when managing odontogenic sinusitis (ODS), but ESS extent for ODS with extramaxillary sinus involvement has been incompletely studied. This study compared outcomes after wide maxillary antrostomy (MA) alone versus complete ESS for ODS with frontal sinus involvement. METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted on patients with uncomplicated ODS (no extrasinus spread) who underwent ESS when computed tomography demonstrated maxillary, anterior ethmoid (AE), and frontal sinus opacification. Multiple preoperative and postoperative variables were recorded, including 22-item sinonasal outcome tests (SNOT-22) and endoscopic findings. Ultimate SNOT-22 and endoscopic resolution, and time to SNOT-22 and endoscopic resolution were compared between patients who underwent MA alone versus "complete" ESS (maxillary, ethmoid, frontal; not sphenoid). RESULTS: Of 70 patients, mean age was 59.2 years, and 55.7% were male. Thirty-five underwent MA alone, and 35 had complete ESS. At first postoperative visits (mean 9.3 days), AE sinus purulence was more likely resolved after complete ESS compared with MA (97.1% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.006). However, time to resolution of AE purulence was comparable by 6 weeks postoperatively (p = 0.158). There were no significant differences in times to foul smell resolution and achieving ≥9 point SNOT-22 reduction (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For ODS with frontal sinus involvement, MA alone and complete ESS both resulted in rapid and long-term symptomatic resolution. While ultimate resolution of sinus purulence was equivalent between surgery groups, complete ESS did lead to faster resolution of frontoethmoidal purulence in a significant number of cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 135:586-592, 2025.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".