| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 34
| Issue : 4 | Page : 466-469 |
|
|
Prevalence of Haller Cell and Accessory Maxillary Ostium: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Study
Subharina Mahapatra1, Manjula Hebbale1, Meenal Tepan1, Rajshekhar Halli2, Simran Singh1, Rakhee Modak1
1 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to Be) University Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to Be) University Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Correspondence Address:
Subharina Mahapatra
Ambegaon BK, Pune, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_154_22
|
|
|
Introduction: Haller cell and accessory maxillary ostium (AMO) do not represent a diseased state, but they can be responsible for the development of maxillary sinusitis. Aim and Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the frequency and volumetry of Haller cell and the prevalence of AMO on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: The two hundred CBCT scans of patients (400 bilateral maxillary sinus region) were evaluated for the presence of Haller cell, and AMO coronal, axial, and sagittal plane was inspected; then, volumetric measurement was carried out at the maximum mediolateral dimension. Based on the size, two observers arbitrarily categorized the Haller cell into small, medium, and large. Finally, descriptive statistics and Chi-square test were done. Results: Fifty-six Haller cell were identified with a prevalence of 28%, of which 20% were unilateral, and 8% were bilateral. Small-sized Haller cell was seen in 11%, medium-sized was seen in 13%, and large sized was seen in 4%. AMO was present unilaterally in 5% of the studied scans. Conclusion: Knowledge of Haller cell and accessory maxillary ostium may aid in interpreting CBCT, which may also forewarn surgeons before surgeries.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
