Dental Education & Research

Misdiagnosed draining fistula in a pregnant patient: A case report

Abstract Chronic inflammation due to periapical abscess can drain into the mouth or outside on the skin through a sinus tract. It may be difficult for the...

DE

Dr Elly Nordinhaus

8 min read200,669 views
  • professional education
  • extraoral fistula
  • dental infection
  • periapical abscess
  • fistula
  • dentistry
  • diagnosis delay
  • pregnancy
  • Dental Education & Research
  • Clinical & Academic Article

Abstract

Chronic inflammation due to periapical abscess can drain into the mouth or outside on the skin through a sinus tract. It may be difficult for the general physician to differentiate the opening of the fistula from primary skin conditions who wrongly refers patients to dermatologists. This is a case report of a chronic periapical abcess with draining fistula, where the delayed diagnosis caused a great deal of misery to patient, who was heavily pregnant during the Covid lockdown.

Introduction

Periapical abscesses due to cavities or trauma commonly cause intraoral fistulas, and less commonly cause extraoral fistulas, which drain directly onto the skin. Extraoral fistulas are rare and many times misdiagnosed as skin lesions. This misdiagnosis is further treated with an unnecessary antibiotic therapy, allowing the infection to become chronic and the abscess to become a hard swelling. Whenever a patient has a facial fistula, it is mandatory to have a complete oral exploration looking for an odontogenic abscess besides the fibrous tissue/fistula. It is necessary to corroborate the periapical infection with a panoramic x ray, or it may be done by drawing the sinus tract with radiopaque material such as gutta percha, and then shooting the x-ray. Therapy consists of treating the underlying infection, either by endodontic treatment of teeth which can be saved, or if the the tooth is totally broken down, it is best to remove it. This article describes the case of a patient who was treated by a physician and then a dermatologist, but with no improvement in lesion since it was misdiagnosed.

A personal note

This case will stay close to my heart. During the coronavirus pandemic, the whole nation was shut down and so was our clinic. My clinic is an extension of my house campus. It had been two months of lock down period when a young lady appeared in my clinic from a village. She was pregnant and had a huge swelling on her face. So when she rang the bell, looking at her condition, we could not send her back. My husband and myself, both of us being dentists, had a brief discussion on what to do. In fact I would say an argument! I was honestly a bit relucatant to take up the case - the staff was on leave, it was peak covid time and she had travelled from a nearby village. But it was time to fulfill our ethical duty and do the needful for her, because she was literally on verge of crying. She had been refused by all hospitals nearby, none of the private practitioners attended her and all refused to examine her. After some dilemma we decided to let her in and treat it as an emergency, atleast relieve her from her swelling.

Case Report

A 25 year old female patient reported to the clinic with a chief complaint of a huge swelling on the left side of her face. History: She gave a history of a cheek lesion which was diagnosed as a skin problem by the local physician, who referred her to a dermatologist in a village near by. She was prescribed oral medications (antibiotics) and local ointment by the dermatologist, but she got no relief. She was 7 months pregnant, with no history of pre-eclampsia or gestational diabetes mellitus.
Examination: On oral examination, in 36 region, she had root stumps and there was huge abscess in relation with that tooth, leading to an extraoral fistula. It was primarily diagnosed as a dental problem and not a skin problem.
Emergency treatment: As the patient was already under an antibiotic cover, a usual incision and drainage was performed of the abscess extra orally. There was a huge amount of pus exudate and she instantly felt relief. Since the root stumps had poor prognosis, it was decided to extract them to eliminate the focus of infection and provide healing. She was told to to consult her gynecologist and take her consent for extraction under local anesthesia . Surgical treatment: After 3 days, the patient re-visited the clinic, this time with an appointment, and with the gynecologist’s approval and consent on paper. The root stumps were extracted under local anesthesia in an atraumatic manner. Curettage was done of the periapical area, followed by copious irrigation with saline and betadine. The patient was instructed to keep strict oral hygiene. No packs or special treatment was done for the fistula as it was small and was expected to heal on its own. Since the patient was already under an antibiotic cover, she was only prescribed analgesics which were safe for use in pregnancy. Follow-up: A telephonic follow-up after a week revealed that she had no pain, discharge or swelling and the fistula had closed. One month after her delivery, she visited the clinic. Her face had no scar and the fistula had healed completely. Prosthetic rehabilitation was explained to her, which she decided to opt for after a few months.

Free for members

Keep reading — it's free

The rest of this article is open to DentalReach members. Create a free account, or sign in, and every article on the site opens in full.

One email on Tuesdays: new articles, discussions, events and jobs. Unsubscribe in one click.

Topics

References

  1. [1]International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals ICMJE Recommendations. 2025. Available at: source
  2. [2]EQUATOR Network. Reporting Guidelines for Main Study Types EQUATOR Network. 2026. Available at: source

Have a question about this article?

Ask DentalReach for a sourced answer from the library. It cannot provide personal medical advice.

Ask about this article