Iatrogenic Rhinoliths: Exercise Caution When Undertaking Palatal-Dental Impressions in the Cleft Patient with an Incompetent Palate
M. Swan,S. Popat,G. Kidner,J. Sibley,T. Goodacre
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/15-311
2017-07-01
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Abstract:We read with interest the recent case report of a symptomatic nasal foreign body arising in a male patient following a dental impression using a silicone elastomeric material in preparation for prosthetic rehabilitation (Ravikumar et al., 2015). The patient had presented with a repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate, and subsequent clinical assessment revealed a previously undiagnosed type IV Pittsburgh fistula (Smith et al., 2007). The authors speculate that iatrogenic nasal foreign bodies are likely to be scarce, as only two additional cases are reported in the literature (Jones and Drake, 2013). Although seemingly rare, such cases may cause significant distress and morbidity to the patient, and further corrective instrumentation is inevitable. The inadvertent herniation of impression material from the oral to nasal cavities when undertaking a dental-palatal impression is a rare but recognized complication; however, it is largely avoidable, given appropriate attention to impression technique. At the Spires Cleft Centre, we have experienced two cases of a symptomatic nasal foreign body arising from the use of impressionmaterial over the past 7 years; in both instances, a general anesthetic was necessary to remove the foreign body. The experience gained from managing each patient has informed our current dental-palatal impression practice; we anticipate that these lessonsmight be instructive for the wider cleft community. The first case is that of a child with a complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. At the age of 10 days, he attended for a routine dental-palatal impression in preparation for the fabrication of a bespoke feeding plate. The impression was performed in clinic using a light body silicone material; some material fractured during removal of the impression tray, and suction was used to eliminate the retained impression material. The child recovered well and was subsequently discharged with the plate being fitted 2 days later. Four days following the initial impression, themother commented that he was feeding well, but she had noticed what appeared to be further impression material in the child’s nasopharynx; there were no airway concerns. The child underwent a formal examination under anesthesia, whereby further fragments of impression material were extracted from the posterior nasal space; his subsequent recovery was uneventful, and he underwent an elective cleft lip repair at the age of 3 months. The second case is that of a 35-year-oldwomanwith a left unilateral cleft lip and palate who had a symptomatic anterior palatal fistula (Pittsburgh type V-VI) for which she wore an obturator plate. She was keen to explore definitive surgical correction and was therefore scheduled for a twostaged FAMMflap reconstruction (Pribaz et al., 1992). She commented that she was unable to breathe through her left nostril and was intensely self-conscious of a persistent offensive discharge from her left nose that had been present for approximately 2 years. At the time of her fistula reconstruction, a nasoendoscopy was performed; the left nostril was completely occluded with a sizeable rhinolith that necessitated piecemeal removal with alligator forceps (Fig. 1A). Macroscopically, the material was consistent with dental alginate; subsequent histologic analysis demonstrated that it was surrounded by laminated calcified concretions and colonies of Actinomyces-like bacteria. Microbiology analysis established a growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Her fistula reconstruction was uneventful, and a repeat nasoendoscopy—performed when dividing her flap pedicle 3 weeks later—confirmed patency of the left nostril with no residual foreign body. The patient was delighted that her nasal airway was now patent with complete resolution of the unpleasant discharge. She subsequently recalled that the onset of her nasal symptoms correlated with an alginate dental impression that was taken 2 years previously in preparation for restorative bridgework of her upper left lateral incisor. These experiences have greatly informed our current practice. When taking impressions in the awake child with an unrepaired cleft palate, a material with high viscosity and rapid cure-rate is preferred. A polyvinylsiloxane-based putty is ideal, although alginate is acceptable provided that it is mixed to ensure an appropriate viscosity (typically, 1:1 alginate to water) and that excessive volumes are not used (Kawara et al., 2015). The child typically cries during the impression process; on removal of the impression tray, careful visual inspection of the oropharynx for extraneous residual material is essential. The availability of an able assistant to hold the child, effective lighting, and a Yankauer suction tube are essential. When taking an impression in adult cleft patients, alginate is often preferred due to the fine detail it affords in a subsequent model. It is first essential to ascertain whether the patient has a palatal fistula; the absence of symptoms does not guarantee an intact palate, and a dental mirror with adequate lighting should be used to carefully examine the anterior palate. If Disclosures: This article has neither been submitted nor presented elsewhere. No financial support has been necessary for the execution of this article. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Submitted November 2015; Accepted November 2015. DOI: 10.1597/15-311