ArticleOral radiology2026
Diagnostic value of rising smoke sign on MRI: a characteristic finding of odontogenic maxillary sinusitis.
Article in Oral radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic utility of MRI findings, particularly the rising smoke sign, in differentiating odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OMS) from non-odontogenic unilateral sinonasal disease.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with unilateral sinonasal disease who underwent CT and MRI between January 2020 and March 2025. Patients were classified into OMS and non-odontogenic groups based on clinical, CT, and when available, surgical pathological findings. Two radiologists evaluated MRI findings including the rising smoke sign (smoke-like low signal intensity continuous from the inferior maxillary sinus on T2-weighted or STIR images) and periapical inflammation on STIR images. Statistical analysis used the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test.
resultsForty-seven patients were included (26 OMS, 21 non-odontogenic). The rising smoke sign was significantly more frequent in OMS (88.5%, 23/26) versus non-odontogenic disease (28.6%, 6/21) (p < 0.0001), with sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.71, and accuracy 0.809. Periapical inflammation on STIR images was more common in OMS (80.8%, 21/26 vs. 4.8%, 1/21; p < 0.0001), with sensitivity 0.81, specificity 0.95, and accuracy 0.87. Both findings simultaneously were present in 69.2% (18/26) of OMS versus 0% (0/21) of non-odontogenic cases (p < 0.0001), demonstrating sensitivity 0.69, specificity 1.00, and accuracy 0.83.
conclusionsThe rising smoke sign is characteristic of OMS with high sensitivity, while periapical inflammation on STIR images demonstrates high specificity. Their simultaneous presence is virtually pathognomonic for OMS with perfect specificity, enabling reliable differentiation from non-odontogenic disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41708948What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.