Impression material presenting in the maxillary antrum as a foreign body

Winstock, Donald; Warnakulasuriya, Saman

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4805763

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The adverse reactions of these impression materials occur when entrapped material remains within the gingival sulcus, under the suture, within the soft tissues, periosteum, and maxillary sinus; when an impression is made, careful inspection of the gingival sulcus and impression for after removal with magnification is requited to prevent adverse reactions. [ 36 37 38 39 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of cytotoxicity levels of poly vinyl ether silicone, polyether, and poly vinyl siloxane impression materials: An in vitro study

Rajasimhan

Jayaraman

Ali

et al. 2019

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To assess the cytotoxicity level of newly introduced poly vinyl ether silicone (PVES) compared to poly vinyl siloxane (PVS) and polyether (PE) elastomeric impression materials. Settings and Design: Comparative -Invitro study design. Materials and Methods: Mouse cell line NIH/3T3 was grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium. Samples of three elastomers were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide and were tested at various concentrations. Twenty-four well plates with NIH/3T3 cells with different concentrations of elastomeric solutions were incubated at 37°C. 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2-5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay was performed on day 1, 3, and 7, with a time interval of 15 min, 30 min, 60 min, and 24 th h to estimate the cytotoxicity for all three elastomers. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test and the period effect within the subjects, repeated-measure ANOVA was done using the Greenhouse–Geisser correction method. Results: The mean cell viability (survival rate) of NIH 3T3 cells at the concentrations tested was measured. A repeated-measure Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA determined the mean survival concentration on day 1, 3, and 7. PVES showed significant decrease in the survival rate on day 1 than PVS and PE, while PVS and PE had significant decrease in the survival rates of cells on day 3 and 7 which were statistically significant ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: PVES shows early cytotoxic signs as compared to PVS and PE, and cell viability for PVS was the highest among all. When making impression with PVES and PE, it is always better to evaluate the impression and gingival sulcus carefully with magnification to prevent adverse reaction, if any material is left inadvertently for longer period of time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of cytotoxicity levels of poly vinyl ether silicone, polyether, and poly vinyl siloxane impression materials: An in vitro study

Rajasimhan

Jayaraman

Ali

et al. 2019

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous case reports and case series have been published documenting migration of foreign bodies into the maxillary sinus [10–20]. Common foreign bodies associated with sinus perforation include endodontic materials [12], displaced fractured roots [13], dental impression materials [14], dental burs [15], sewing needle [16], amalgam fillings [17] and even dental implants [18–20]. Indeed, one of the most common complications for implant placement in the posterior atrophic maxilla is the invasion of the maxillary sinus, which may lead to infection and subsequently implant failure [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixation tack penetration into the maxillary sinus: A case report of a guided bone regeneration procedure complication

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBackground:Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is an established and predictable procedure used to obtain adequate alveolar bone for the placement of dental implants. Anatomical challenges, such as the proximity of the maxillary sinus, may lead to complications during a GBR procedure. The purpose of this report is to present a unique and hitherto unreported complication of a GBR procedure, i.e., the penetration of a titanium fixation tack into the maxillary sinus.Case Report:A unique GBR is presented, where a titanium tack penetrated the maxillary sinus with subsequent migration and loss. Attempts to locate the tack visually during the procedure were unsuccessful. The GBR procedure was aborted and dental radiographs were immediately obtained. The patient was completely asymptomatic during the healing period. Eight weeks later a cone beam computed tomography revealed a non-inflamed sinus with no pathology evident. However, the tack could not be visualized. An otolaryngology consultation was requested and the ensuing sinus endoscopy did not reveal any evidence of the penetrated tack. It is thought that the loose tack migrated completely out of the sinus through the nasal passage.Conclusions:The use of a pre-operative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) would have allowed the clinician to assess the exact thickness of the lateral wall of the maxillary sinus and better determine the ideal placement location and/or the feasibility of using a fixation tack in the posterior upper jaw.

show abstract

“…Despite the worldwide use of impression materials, only a limited number of case reports have been described in the literature from 1965 to date (Olson 1968,van de Poel 1972, Price & Whitehead 1972, O’Leary et al . 1973, Clark 1974, Glenwright 1975, Gettleman & Agranat 1976, Gullet & Caulder 1978, Eliasson & Haasken 1979, Winstock & Warnakulasuriya 1986, Kent et al . 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An unusual swelling following endodontic and prosthodontic treatment of a mandibular molar due to a foreign body reaction

Ree

2001

Int Endodontic J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Impression material presenting in the maxillary antrum as a foreign body

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluation of cytotoxicity levels of poly vinyl ether silicone, polyether, and poly vinyl siloxane impression materials: An in vitro study

Evaluation of cytotoxicity levels of poly vinyl ether silicone, polyether, and poly vinyl siloxane impression materials: An in vitro study

Fixation tack penetration into the maxillary sinus: A case report of a guided bone regeneration procedure complication

An unusual swelling following endodontic and prosthodontic treatment of a mandibular molar due to a foreign body reaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About