Integrated Endodontic Microsurgery And Maxillary Sinus Ectopic Tooth Extraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case demonstrates an innovative protocol for managing refractory apical periodontitis involving an ectopic tooth within the maxillary sinus—a scenario requiring interdisciplinary precision to address cross-regional infection risks. A patient presented with swelling and pain in tooth #22 (two failed root canal treatments ). CBCT revealed a 8.2×10.8×8.0 mm cystic lesion involving the apices of #21, #22, and #23., extending to the root of an inverted ectopic tooth embedded in the sinus floor. Treatment involved: 1. Endodontic microsurgery under microscopy: submarginal rectangular flap, 3 mm root-end resection, ultrasonic retro-preparation, and retrofilling with IRoot BP (mineral trioxide aggregate, Innovative Bioceramix, Canada). 2. Ectopic tooth extraction : Atraumatic removal preserving sinus mucosal integrity. Histopathology confirmed a radicular cyst. At 3-month follow-up, CBCT demonstrated partial osteogenesis imagingand mucosal healing. The ectopic tooth’s root involvement within the cyst margin justified combined surgery. Prioritizing apical microsurgery eliminated primary infection sources, reducing sinus contamination risks. Microscopic precision and CBCT-guided planning enabled targeted intervention, while iRoot BP’s osteoconductivity enhanced regeneration. This aligns with evidence advocating staged approaches for multifactorial pathologies. Coordinated microsurgery and 3D imaging resolve complex apical-sinus interactions, minimizing complications. The protocol’s success underscores the value of interdisciplinary integration in modern endodontics, offering a replicable model for similar high-risk cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".