Multiple Intranasal Foreign Bodies: An Incidental Diagnosis

Abstract

Inquisitive children often insert foreign bodies into their nose or other body orifices while they explore their own bodies in early childhood. Intranasal foreign bodies are found in children, most commonly in 2-4 years olds.Common symptoms in such cases include pain or discomfort, nasal discharge, nasal congestion, nasal odor, including bromhidrosis (foul body odor). Complications, such as facial cellulitis, epiglottitis, and cephalic tetanus have also been reported. Mentally challenged children may be at a higher risk for such foreign body insertion and may need to be examined at regular intervals.Careful interpretation of dental radiographs can go a long way in diagnosing such cases especially in the absence of a positive history. Radiolucent objects are more difficult to identify especially in the absence of a positive history, and hence their diagnosis and removal is more challenging for the clinician.Dental practitioners can play a significant role in the diagnosis of intranasal foreign bodies in children through careful clinical examination and interpretation of dental radiographs.This case report describes a child referred for dental care and a diagnosis of intranasal foreign body was made based on routine dental panoramic radiograph.

Unexpected metallic foreign bodies on panoramic scans – a narrative review

“…The spectrum of objects ranges from jewelry to small batteries, buttons, and toys [34,38]. For example, Habibullah et al (2010) report on an unusual OPG of an 8-year-old boy with hyperactivity. Surgery was planned for this patient due to a twoweek history of swelling and multiple broken teeth.…”

“…14 The routine radiograph shows a metal post in the region of the root of tooth 35 and amalgam fillings in teeth 14, 25, 46, and 48. The partial denture (blue arrow) replacing missing teeth of the lower jaw (36,(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42) makes it difficult to perform a further diagnostic workup of the clinical crowns of the lower jaw.…”

“…Inspection of the ear canals was unremarkable. 3D imaging was not necessary 39 . Of course, such foreign bodies can go undetected for years as described by Tay et al (2000) in a case report 40 .…”

“…Die Inspektion der Gehörgänge war dagegen unauffällig. Eine 3-D-Bildgebung war hier nicht erforderlich 39 . Selbstverständlich können derartige Fremdkörper auch über viele Jahre hinweg unentdeckt bleiben, wie Tay et al (2000) in einem Fallbericht darstellen 40 .…”

“…Die Inspektion der Gehörgänge war dagegen unauffällig. Eine 3-D-Bildgebung war hier nicht erforderlich[39]. Selbstverständlich können derartige Fremdkörper auch über viele Jahre hinweg unentdeckt bleiben, wieTay et al (2000) in einem Fallbericht darstellen[40].Eine weitere Rarität ist eine im Rahmen einer Dysgnathie-Operation verlorengegangene kieferorthopädische Befestigung, die im Kontrollröntgenbild einen Zufallsbefund darstellte (▶ Abb 19…”