To evaluate the anatomy and variations of osteomeatal complex (OMC) by comparing patients with nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) and control group.
Design
This case-control study was retrospectively analyzed using cone-beam computed tomography data.
Setting
Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology.
Patients
The study was conducted with 100 patients (44 females, 56 males) with CLP and 100 patients in the control group, which matched gender and age (with a maximum difference of 3 years).
Variables
OMC variations are grouped as follows: ethmoidal, conchal, uncinate process, and septal variations. Then, we evaluated the presence of these OMC variations and compared them between the two groups.
Statistical analysis
The McNemar's test was used to determine any significant differences between the groups for all indices at the 95% confidence level.
Results
The most common anatomic variation in this study was Agger nasi cell (97%) and concha bullosa (97%) in the patients with CLP, while Agger nasi cell was the most common variation (99%) in the controls. Moreover, the atelectatic uncinate process was the least observed variation in both groups (1%). The incidences of paradoxical concha (58%;42%), bifid concha (29%;11%), deviated nasal septum (92%;80%) were significantly higher in the CLP group (p < 0.05).
Conclusions
The statistically significant results found when comparing OMC anatomy between the two groups reveal the importance of three-dimensional evaluation before functional endoscopic sinus surgery in patients with CLP.
AhmadMKhuranaNJaberiJSampairCKubaRK. Prevalence of infraorbital ethmoid (Haller's) cells on panoramic radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2006;101(5):658-661.
2.
AksungurEHBıçakçıKİnalMAkgülEBinokayFAydoǧanBOğuzM. CT Demonstration of accessory nasal turbinates: secondary middle turbinate and bifid inferior turbinate. Eur J Radiol. 1999;31(3):174-176.
3.
AliIKSansareKKarjodkarFRVangaKSalvePPawarAM. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of accessory maxillary ostium and Haller cells: prevalence and clinical significance. Imaging Sci Dent. 2017;47(1):30-34.
4.
Al MuhaimeedHHashashYShafyAHashashM. Ostiomeatal complex in normal Semitic adults. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2002;64(6):443-447.
5.
Al-QudahM. The relationship between anatomical variations of the sino-nasal region and chronic sinusitis extension in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72(6):817-821.
6.
AlsufyaniNEl-HakimHMajorP. Prevalence of maxillary sinus hypoplasia and association with variations in the sinonasal complex: a cone beam CT study. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(9):5463-5471.
7.
AngelicoFVJr.RapoportPB. Analysis of the agger nasi cell and frontal sinus ostium sizes using computed tomography of the paranasal sinuses. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;79(3):285-292.
8.
AramaniAKaradiRNKumarS. A study of anatomical variations of osteomeatal complex in chronic rhinosinusitis patients-CT findings. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(10):KC01-KC04.
9.
BananRDaliliZKhalighi SigaroudiASedaghatiMJ. Evaluation of anatomical variations of paranasal sinuses in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis in comparing with normal individuals. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;4(4):1-6.
10.
BandyopadhyayRBiswasRBhattacherjeeSPanditNGhoshS. Osteomeatal Complex: a study of Its anatomical variation Among patients attending north Bengal medical college and hospital. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;67(3):281-286.
11.
BasicNBasicVJukicTBasicMJelicMHatJ. Computed tomographic imaging to determine the frequency of anatomical variations in pneumatization of the ethmoid bone. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1999;256(2):69-71.
12.
BolgerWEParsonsDSButzinCA. Paranasal sinus bony anatomic variations and mucosal abnormalities: CT analysis for endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope. 1991;101(1):56-64.
13.
BrunnerEJacobsJBShpiznerBALebowitzRAHollidayRA. Role of the agger nasi cell in chronic frontal sinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1996;105(9):694-700.
14.
CagiciCAOzerCYilmazIBolatFACakmakO. Solitary polyps of the uncinate process. Ear Nose Throat J. 2007;86(2):94-96.
15.
ÇalışkanASumerAPBulutE. Evaluation of anatomical variations of the nasal cavity and ethmoidal complex on cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol. 2017;33(1):51-59.
16.
CaversaccioMBoschungUMudryA. Historical review of Haller's cells. Ann Anat. 2011;193(3):185-190.
17.
CellinaMGibelliDCappellaAMartinenghiCBelloniEOlivaG. Nasal cavities and the nasal septum: anatomical variants and assessment of features with computed tomography. Neuroradiol J. 2020;33(4):340-347.
18.
DasarUGokceE. Evaluation of variations in sinonasal region with computed tomography. World J Radiol. 2016;8(1):98-108.
19.
DedeogluNAltunOKucukEBAltindisSHatunoglE. Evaluation of the anatomical variation in the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses of patients with cleft lip and palate using cone beam computed tomography. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2016;117(12):691-696.
20.
De MirandaCde Miranda MaranhãoCPArraesFPadilhaIDe FariasLde Araujo JatobáM. Anatomical variations of paranasal sinuses at multislice computed tomography: what to look for. Radiol Bras. 2011;44(4):256-262.
21.
DemirtasOKalabalikFDaneAAktanAMCiftciETarimE. Does unilateral cleft Lip and palate affect the maxillary Sinus volume?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(2):168-172.
22.
EarwakerJ. Anatomic variants in sinonasal CT. Radiographics. 1993;13(2):381-415.
23.
ElsayedNMAbdalaalLF. The relation between anatomical variations of osteomeatal Complex & nasal structures and chronic sinusitis by computed tomography. Int J Med Imaging. 2015;3(2):16-20.
24.
FriedrichREFraederichMSchoenG. Frequency and volumetry of infraorbital ethmoid cells (Haller cells) on cone-beam computed tomograms (CBCT) of the mid-face. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;6:Doc07(20170411).
25.
GanjianEGannonPJFliegelmanLJLawsonW. Nasal obstruction: an alternative to ostiomeatal complex dysfunction in sinus disease. Laryngoscope. 1999;109(11):1848-1851.
26.
GhoshP. Ostiomeatal complex pathology versus maxillary sinus pathology: (How I perceive it? - a reappraisal). Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;52(1):105-106.
27.
GungorGOkurNOkurE. Uncinate process variations and their relationship with ostiomeatal Complex: a pictorial essay of multidedector computed tomography (MDCT) findings. Pol J Radiol. 2016;81:173-180.
28.
Hiyama TShiigai MMasumoto TMinami M. The Ethmoid Bone: Clinical Imaging Anatomy from an Embryological Point of View. Vienna, Austria: European Congress of Radiology-ECR 2013; 2013.
29.
IshikawaYKawanoMHonjoIAmitaniR. The cause of nasal sinusitis in patients with cleft palate. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1989;115(4):442-446.
30.
IsobeMMurakamiGKatauraA. Variations of the uncinate process of the lateral nasal wall with clinical implications. Clin Anat. 1998;11(5):295-303.
31.
JiJZhouMLiZWangTChengYWangQ. Frontal sinus surgery anterior to the ethmoid bulla. Int Surg. 2013;98(2):149-155.
32.
JiangMYouMWangSWangKFengBWangH. Analysis of nasal septal deviation in cleft palate and/or alveolus patients using cone-beam computed tomography. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151(2):226-231.
33.
JoeJKHoSYYanagisawaE. Documentation of variations in sinonasal anatomy by intraoperative nasal endoscopy. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(2 Pt 1):229-235.
34.
KantarciMKarasenRMAlperFOnbasOOkurAKaramanA. Remarkable anatomic variations in paranasal sinus region and their clinical importance. Eur J Radiol. 2004;50(3):296-302.
35.
KayaliogluGOyarOGovsaF. Nasal cavity and paranasal sinus bony variations: a computed tomographic study. Rhinology. 2000;38(3):108-113.
36.
KaygusuzAHakseverMAkdumanDAslanSSayarZ. Sinonasal anatomical variations: their relationship with chronic rhinosinusitis and effect on the severity of disease-a computerized tomography assisted anatomical and clinical study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;66(3):260-266.
37.
KhojastepourLMirhadiSMesbahiSA. Anatomical variations of ostiomeatal Complex in CBCT of patients seeking rhinoplasty. J Dent (Shiraz). 2015;16(1):42-48.
38.
KoenigLJTamimiDPetrikowskiCGPerschbacherSE. Diagnostic Imaging: Oral and Maxillofacial E-Book. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017.
39.
KoppeTWeigelCBarenklauMKadukWBayerleinTGedrangeT. Maxillary sinus pneumatization of an adult skull with an untreated bilateral cleft palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006;34(Suppl 2):91-95.
40.
KrzeskiATomaszewskaEJakubczykIGalewicz-ZielińskaA. Anatomic variations of the lateral nasal wall in the computed tomography scans of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol. 2001;15(6):371-375.
41.
LaineFJSmokerWR. The ostiomeatal unit and endoscopic surgery: anatomy, variations, and imaging findings in inflammatory diseases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(4):849-857.
42.
LouZ. The rhinogenic headache resulting from the contact point between inferior turbinate and septal spur. Am J Otolaryngol. 2019;40(6):102281. -.
43.
MassieJPRunyanCMSternMJAlperovichMRickertSMShetyePRStaffenbergDAFloresRLNasal septal anatomy in skeletally mature patients With cleft Lip and palate. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18(5):347-353.
44.
MathewROmamiGHandAFellowsDLurieA. Cone beam CT analysis of Haller cells: prevalence and clinical significance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(9):20130055.
45.
OzcanKMSelcukAÖzcanIAkdoganODereH. Anatomical variations of nasal turbinates. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19(6):1678-1682.
46.
PerezPSabateJCarmonaACatalina-HerreraCJJimenez-CastellanosJ. Anatomical variations in the human paranasal sinus region studied by CT. J Anat. 2000;197(Pt 2):221-227.
47.
PericARasicDGrgurevicU. Surgical treatment of rhinogenic contact point headache: an experience from a tertiary care hospital. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;20(2):166-171.
RielloAPDFLBoasquevisqueEMJRB. Anatomical variants of the ostiomeatal complex: tomographic findings in 200 patients. Radiol Bras. 2008;41(3):149-154.
50.
StallmanJSLoboJNSomPM. The incidence of concha bullosa and its relationship to nasal septal deviation and paranasal sinus disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(9):1613-1618.
51.
SuriSUtrejaAKhandelwalNMagoSK. Craniofacial computerized tomography analysis of the midface of patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(3):418-429.
52.
SuzukiHYamaguchiTFurukawaM. Rhinologic computed tomographic evaluation in patients with cleft lip and palate. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125(9):1000-1004.
53.
WaniAAKanotraSLateefMAhmadRQaziSMAhmadS. CT Scan evaluation of the anatomical variations of the ostiomeatal complex. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;61(3):163-168.
54.
YeginYÇelikMŞimşekBMOlgunBCanpolatSKayhanFT. Türk toplumunda agger nasi hücresi görülme sıklığı; anatomik bilgisayarlı tomografi çalışması. İstanbul Bilim Üniversitesi Florence Nightingale Tıp Dergisi. 2016;2(2):84-89.
55.
YenigunAGunCUysalIIKelesMKNaymanAKarabulutAK. Prevalence of pneumatized uncinate process and accompanying neighboring variations. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2016;26(4):195-200.
56.
ZinreichSJKennedyDWGaylerBW. Computed tomography of nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses: an evaluation of anatomy for endoscopic sinus surgery. Clear Images. 1988a;1(2):10.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
