Evaluation of different treatments for oroantral/oronasal communications: experience of 112 cases

Abstracts on this page have been chosen and edited by Dr Trevor Watts

Abstract

The commonest cause was tooth extraction, and 92% of communications were closed at the first attempt.

Main

Abuabara A, Cortez ALV et al. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 35: 155–158

In this study, 112 patients (68 male) with 101 oroantral communications (OACs; mean age 31 yrs) and 11 oronasal communications (ONCs; 36 yrs) were treated over a 16 yr period in a Brazilian dental school. Causes of OAC were tooth extractions (95%), pathological lesions (3%), trauma (1%) and periapical infections (1%). ONCs were caused by pathological lesions (3 cases), tooth extractions (3), gunshot wounds (2), blastomycosis (1), congenital malformation (1) and removal of an implant intruded into the nasal cavity (1).

OACs >3 mm usually require surgical closure. Suturing of freshened edges of the lesion was used in 61 cases (4 complications), use of the buccal fat pad (BFP) in 28 (none), buccal flaps in 9 (1), palatal flaps in 2 (1) and dental transplantation in one. For ONCs, 5 were treated with suturing, 4 by buccal flap and 2 by palatal flap. Treatment failed in 3 patients, for whom obturators were prescribed. The authors recommend suturing for OACs of 3-5 mm, and BFP for larger ones, but consider that some ONCs may need multiple interventions.