Maxillary sinus septa: prevalence, morphology, diagnostics and implantological implications. Systematic review

Background: The purpose of this review is to indicate the prevalence of septa, illustrate the most adequate diagnostic method and further discuss pre-operative considerations and implantological implications.Materials and methods: On June 30th, 2013, a comprehensive database search was executed using PubMed (Medline) and Google Scholar. No time frames were applied. Only publications in English, Polish and German in peer-reviewed journals were considered.Results: The final number of articles was 55: 7 articles were found to describe the possible aetiology of sinus septa, 34 articles describing the prevalence, 21 including information on classification, 19 showed methods of diagnosis and 24 articles included practical information about the influence of the septa in pre- and implantation surgery. One article could be found in more than one category.Conclusions: Septa can be found in 9% to 70% patients (mean prevalence: about 36%) in every age group — young dentate patients as primary septa and old edentate or edentulous patients as primary or secondary septa more frequentin edentate or edentulous patients. When planning any surgical procedures, septa incidence should be taken into consideration. Precise information about the septa can be obtained from computed tomography (CT) or cone-beam CT. With development of the knowledge and surgical technique, septa appearance has simply become another option for treatment as any form of disadvantage

Experimental and clinical assessment of three-dimensional cephalometry: A systematic review.

This study provides a systematic review of the current scientific literature on three-dimensional (3D) cephalometry. The null hypothesis was that 3D cephalometry is an accurate and reproducible diagnostic technique. To examine this hypothesis, the following three research questions were proposed: 1) What is the accuracy of 3D cephalometric measurements compared to in vitro measurements? 2) What is the intra- and inter-observer reliability of the selection of 3D cephalometric landmarks? 3) What is the reproducibility of the linear and angular measurements