CHRONIC MAXILLARY RHINOSINUSITIS AND PERIODONTITIS: A SINGLE PATHOLOGICAL PROCESS OR SEPARATE DISEASES? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relevance: According to various sources, odontogenic origins of chronic maxillary rhinosinusitis (CMRS) are found in 5-40% of all chronic rhinosinusitis cases. The authors' data indicate that unilateral CMRS may suggest an odontogenic cause, confirmed upon further examination in 45-70% of cases. Causes of odontogenic CMRS can include various dental pathologies such as endodontic diseases, periodontitis, oroantral fistula, or foreign bodies (elements of filling material). This article specifically focuses on the associations between periodontitis and chronic rhinosinusitis. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and analyze the existing literature to determine the possible association between chronic rhinosinusitis and periodontitis. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PRISMA criteria. The quality of the original studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Only studies with medium to high quality (evidence levels 1-2) were included in the final analysis. Results: The final sample after selecting all relevant publications included 5 studies, all with an evidence level of 2b according to the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) criteria. The meta-analysis of the provided data yielded a pooled odds ratio (Pooled OR) of 1.38 with a 95% confidence interval [1.16, 1.66]. The Q-statistic reached 41.19, and the I²-statistic was 87.86%. Conclusions: A significant association between chronic periodontitis and CMRS was identified. The presence of periodontitis in patients increases the likelihood of developing CMRS by 38% on the side of the affected tooth. Keywords: periodontitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, odontogenic rhinosinusitis, maxillary sinus.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".