Intentional Replantation Of Maxillary Second Molar For Odontogenic Maxillary Sinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This case report demonstrates successful treatment of both apical periodontitis and odontogenic maxillary sinusitis caused by gutta-percha overextension in tooth 27 through intentional replantation. Case description A 20-year-old female presented with left upper posterior teeth discomfort during occlusal biting for a 2-week duration, accompanied by left-sided nasal congestion and facial tenderness.Diagnosis revealed periapical periodontitis of tooth 27 and left maxillary sinusitis. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images indicated 3–5 mm gutta-percha overextension in the mesio-buccal, disto-buccal, and palatal roots.Additionally, significant mucosal hyperplasia was noted in the left maxillary sinus.The tooth was atraumatically extracted in collaboration with an oral surgeon. Subsequent procedures included root apex resection under dental microscopy, ultrasonic retro-preparation, and retro-filling with iRoot BP Plus (Innovative BioCeramix Inc.,Vancouver, BC, Canada) .The replanted tooth showed no symptoms after 16 months, with periapical X-ray revealing no root resorption and CBCT demonstrating resolution of maxillary sinusitis. Discussion Extrusion of filling materials into the maxillary sinus can lead to various symptoms. In cases where materials exceed the apical foramen, traditional root canal retreatment may be challenging. Surgical intervention near the maxillary sinus poses risks of complications. Multidisciplinary treatment with a dental microscope can facilitate minimally invasive extraction of the affected tooth, prompt removal of infection, and enhance the success of intentional replantation. Conclusion/clinical significance When root canal retreatment and apical surgery cannot be carried out, intentional replantation can be considered.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".