1. Introduction
Overall, the incidence of severe odontogenic infections is believed to be declining for a variety of reasons, including the availability of antimicrobials, innovations in healthcare delivery, and overall improvement in oral hygiene, leading to a decrease in mortality [1,2]. Infections of dental origin are rather prevalent, with some studies claiming they account for a significant percentage of antibiotic prescriptions. However, if left untreated, they might extend to the maxillofacial and cervical regions, hence posing a plethora of potential concerning issues [3,4].
It is crucial while treating patients with odontogenic infections to identify those that pose a high likelihood of developing serious consequences. These results may influence judgments on the dosage and effectiveness of therapy for some complicated cases. The strength of the immunoinflammatory response is believed to be a main prognostic factor [5]. Using factors derived from basic blood tests, several scores have been developed to predict the duration and severity of infections [6]. Such characteristics would be especially beneficial due to their quick availability and inexpensive cost. White blood cell (WBC) count, Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), and C-reactive protein are a few examples of (CRP) that were examined as objective assessment factors, but the findings were inconsistent [7,8,9].
Consequently, the white blood cell count (WBC) is a well-researched predictor of inflammation [10] with a half-life of 5–6 days. However, due to CRP’s fast peaks and falls, it is a more sensitive marker for the course of infection than WBC [11]. In addition, WBC count levels alone were inadequate to rule in or rule out the existence of infections [12]. However, increased levels are vague and have little diagnostic accuracy. For instance, WBCs have a minimal role in the diagnosis and severity assessment of head and neck infections [13]; their significance lies mainly in the evaluation of the patient’s response to therapy. In comparison to odontogenic infections, CRP is a better infection measure than WBC because its level rises more rapidly [14,15,16]. CRP is present in minute quantities in healthy persons, increases quickly with infection within a few hours [17], and then rapidly decreases when the inflammation subsides. Due to the tight relationship between the intensity and duration of acute infections, CRP is a sensitive indicator of inflammatory processes. Due to this, CRP is often utilized as a marker for odontogenic infection, which corresponds with hospital length of stay [18], while some authors believe it will never become a diagnostic tool on its own but can only be evaluated in conjunction with other clinical and pathological findings [19].
Instead, the NLR score, computed as the ratio between the neutrophil and lymphocyte counts detected in peripheral blood, is a valid indicator for detecting inflammatory status, bacteremia, and sepsis [20,21]. Because the early hyperdynamic phase of infection is characterized by a proinflammatory state mediated by neutrophils, an isolated increase in neutrophil count, and thus, an elevated NLR, can be observed in a variety of conditions, including bacterial or fungal infection, acute stroke, myocardial infarction, atherosclerosis, severe trauma, malignancies, post-surgical complications, or any condition that can activate systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. NLR is a simple, fast-reacting, and generally accessible indicator of stress and inflammation with high sensitivity but limited specificity [29]. It is frequently employed in practically all medical fields nowadays, including emergency care, surgical fields, and infections in the craniofacial area; however, it is the subject of relatively insufficient research [30].
Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are typically elevated in patients that develop abnormal inflammatory responses. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated so far the relationship between NLR and CRP with the severity of odontogenic infections. Therefore, it is believed that combining these two inflammatory scores would result in a more accurate disease-severity score, while the null hypothesis states that NLR-CRP association is an insignificant predictor of OI severity. In our investigation, we predicted that by combining the fast-rising characteristics of CRP with the high sensitivity of NLR for inflammation, it would be possible to obtain a measure with the capacity to predict the severity of odontogenic infections with great accuracy.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Ethics
The study was designed as a retrospective cohort of patients admitted for odontogenic infections to the Maxillofacial Surgery Department of City Emergency Hospital Timisoara (SCMUT), affiliated with the Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy from Timisoara between January 2017 to April 2022. These data were collected from digital and paper records only with the patient’s agreement and the ethical approval obtained from the Ethics Committee of SCMUT with the approval number I-27098 from 14 October 2022.
2.2. Patient Selection Process
Patients above the age of eighteen were enrolled in the research. Infections of odontogenic origin were examined for inclusion according to the international classification of diseases (ICD-10) disease classification [31]. Patients whose medical records were incomplete were excluded from the research. Patients under the age of 18, pregnant women, and those with malignancy, immunodeficiency, or infections of origin other than odontogenic were excluded from the research, to avoid potential outliers in the levels of serum inflammatory markers. According to the Symptom Severity score (SS) presented in Table 1, eligible cases were divided into two groups based on the severity of the infection. The low-severity infection group consisted of mild to moderate infections, whereas the high-severity infection group included moderate to severe infections. At admission, the SS score of odontogenic infection created by Sainuddin et al. [30] and used in this study was calculated. Sepsis was defined by the recent guidelines in accordance with the sequential sepsis-related organ failure assessment score (SOFA) [32].
A convenience sampling method was employed to calculate the appropriate sample size. Considering the incidence of OI in the general population ranges between 0.05% and 0.1% [33,34], the computed ideal sample size was 34 patients, using a 99% confidence level and a 1 margin of error. Between January 2017 and April 2022, a total of 141 eligible patients identified with odontogenic infections were hospitalized at the Maxillofacial Surgery Department of the SCMUT. After deleting missing data and filtering by severity scores, 108 patients were eventually matched 1:1 by severity index and included in the study. The records were subsequently divided into two groups based on the primary anatomic space involved and the SS score: Group A consists of 54 individuals with a lower severity (SS score from 0 to 8 points); Group B consists of 54 patients with a greater severity (SS score from 9 to 16 points).
2.3. Data Collection and Variables
Demographic data and the patient’s medical history were collected. The hospital information system obtained the patients’ discharge reports, clinical evaluations, laboratory values, and imaging tests. Furthermore, routine blood samples, white blood cell count (WBC), hemogram indexes such as neutrophil and lymphocyte count, Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), and platelet count were evaluated. The variables considered for analysis comprised demographic data: age, gender, and place of origin, clinical presentation features (body temperature, trismus (mild, moderate, or severe), odontalgia (visual analog scale), mandibular pain (visual analog scale), dysfunctional disturbances of the masticatory system (mandibular dysfunction, headache, and unilateral chewing side)), edema, signs of obstruction (dyspnea, dysphagia), and signs of systemic infection (temperature >38.3 °C or <35.3 °C, heart rate > 90 bpm, respiratory rate > 20/min, blood pressure and WBC < 4 or >12 × 10³/μL) [35]. Routine blood sample on admission to the hospital: complete blood count, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), blood glucose levels, sodium and potassium, creatinine, and the glomerular filtration rate, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), aspartate transaminase (AST), alanine transaminase (ALT), clotting time, and swab culture with antibiogram. Research variables for serum parameters included the Neutrophil to Lymphocytes Ratio (NLR) obtained by dividing absolute Neutrophil and Lymphocyte counts.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Data were obtained electronically and deidentified. Mean values and standard deviations (SD), p-values, and correlation coefficient “r” of the laboratory values were calculated using the statistical analysis software MedCalc (MedCalc Software bv, Ostend, Belgium). Variables were compared between group A and group B, including the laboratory tests mentioned above related to the Severity Score (SS) of odontogenic infections. The Mann−Whitney U test was applied to compare non-normally distributed means, while Student’s t-test was used to compare normally-distributed data. Chi-square and Fischer’s exact tests were applied to verify a possible difference between the two groups regarding variables described as proportionate values. Logistic regression analysis was applied to determine the association between CRP and NLR. The hazard ratio and adjusted odds ratios were determined for the assessment of CRP and NLR as predictors for infection severity (represented by SS score severity). The area under the curve (AUC) was plotted for CRP and NLR to determine their accuracy in predicting the severity of odontogenic infections. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant when comparing the study variables.
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population
In total, 544 patients diagnosed clinically and radiologically with odontogenic infections were admitted and hospitalized at the Maxillofacial Surgery Department, SCMUT, Romania, between January 2017 and April 2022. Only 108 patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study, as described in Figure 1. The patients were further subcategorized according to the SS score into two groups as follows: Group A—the low-severity infection group with 54 patients whose severity score ranges from 0 to 8 points on the SS scale; Group B—the high-severity infection group including 54 patients with a severity score between 9 and over 16 points. Table 2 describes the comparison of background characteristics among patients with odontogenic infections. It was observed that men were more frequently involved with OI (55.6% in Group A and 66.7% in Group B). The mean age was 46.7 years in Group A (age range 18–81), compared with 51.7 years in Group B (age range 20–85), without a statistically significant difference (p-value = 0.150). However, the place of origin was significantly different between the study groups, with patients with more severe infections coming more frequently from rural regions (68.5% vs. 46.3%, p-value = 0.019). Additionally, patients with severe OI were more often affected by diabetes mellitus (p-value < 0.001), and smoking was more common in Group B compared to the group with lower severity infections (35.2% vs. 16.7%, p-value = 0.028).
3.2. Characteristics of Infection in the Study Population
Regarding the infection type in OI admitted to the hospital, 70.4% of them were abscesses in the lower infection cohort (Group A), while in Group B, 55.6% of infections were associations of abscesses and cellulitis (p-value < 0.001), as seen in Table 3. The most involved infection sites were the superficial lodges (40.7% vs. 48.1%), and peri-mandibular infections (25.9% vs. 33.3%), without statistically significant differences. Regarding disease outcomes, a total of 22.2% of patients in Group B developed sepsis, compared to 7.4% in Group A (p-value = 0.030), and four patients with severe OI were admitted to the ICU. However, mortality was not significantly different between the study groups (0.0% in Group A vs. 5.6% in Group B, p-value = 0.078). The median duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in patients from Group B, compared to Group A (12.0 days vs. 4.1 days, p-value < 0.001), in correlation with a higher frequency of severe complications in Group B (16.7% vs. 3.7%, p-value = 0.025).
The symptom severity evaluation presented in Table 4 identified a total of 32 (59.2%) patients with a SIRS score ranging from 0 to 1 in Group A. On the other side, Group B patients were only 13 (24.0%) within the 0–1 score range (p-value < 0.001). A severe trismus score was observed in 27 (50.0%) of patients from Group B, compared to only 9.3% in Group A (p-value < 0.001). Similar observations were noticed in the dysphagia score and fascial space score, where a statistically significantly higher prevalence of high severity was found in Group B patients. The prevalence of patients with odontogenic infections who were admitted with dehydration and significant comorbidities was significantly higher in Group B (29.6% vs. 5.6% in Group A, p-value = 0.001).
3.3. Risk Assessment in the Study Population
Table 5 presents the comparison of severity scores and biomarker scores among patients with odontogenic infections admitted to the hospital. It was observed that SS and SII scores were statistically significantly higher among patients in Group B (13.6 vs. 6.1, p-value < 0.001), respectively, 2312.4 in Group B compared to 696.3 in Group A (p-value < 0.001). All tested biomarker scores were significantly higher in Group B patients, including the CRP-NLR association, with a median score of 341.4, compared with 79.0 in Group B (p-value < 0.001).
The logistic regression analysis presented in Table 6 describes the predictive of biological markers on the severity of odontogenic infections represented on the SS scale. It was observed that patients with an elevated WBC count had a 5.54 higher likelihood of severe OI, elevated neutrophils (OR = 7.10), elevated lymphocyte count (OR = 8.62), elevated NLR with an odds ratio of 4.46 (p-value < 0.001), high CRP levels with a 6.65 higher likelihood of severe OI, and lastly, the CRP-NLR association being responsible for a 7.28 higher risk (95% CI = 4.83–10.16). The ROC analysis of CRP-NLR resulted in a 0.889 AUC value (p-value < 0.001), with high sensitivity (79.6%) and high specificity (85.1%) for predicting a severe odontogenic infection using these biomarkers measured at hospital admission (Figure 2).
4. Discussion
4.1. Important Findings
The decision-making process in medicine incorporates clinical and laboratory considerations. Detecting an increase in acute phase reactants may assist the diagnostic interpretation of clinical symptoms in circumstances when an infection is suspected. In our investigation, CRP-NLR, which consists of CRP level at admission and NLR level at admission, was shown to have a more accurate ability to predict the severity of odontogenic infection. Initially, it was shown that a high CRP-NLR was substantially and strongly connected with high severity levels in odontogenic infection. Then, we examined the connection between CRP-NLR levels and WBC levels at admission in both severity groups and discovered that CRP-NLR had a greater predictive capability.
A better understanding of the inflammatory cascade has led to new discoveries and the identification of many mediators that, in combination with clinical symptoms, might serve as valuable infection indicators [36]. Bagul et al. [37] concluded in their study that CRP should be recommended as a monitoring marker for managing patients with fascial space infections of odontogenic origin, as it is a more sensitive indicator than WBC count and one of the best measuring tools for determining the infection control in these patients. In addition, John CR et al. [38] showed in their research analyzing indicators in patients with odontogenic fascial space infections that CRP should be suggested as a monitoring marker for the diagnosis of fascial space infection and for determining the response to treatment. In their research, Barreto et al. [39] found that the CRP test is a practical, easily accessible blood test that portrays the patient course and response to therapy more precisely than other commonly used indicators in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Dynamic changes in NLR, on the other hand, predate the clinical condition by several hours and may alert doctors to an ongoing pathogenic process. Despite these benefits, NLR as a biomarker for assessing the progression of odontogenic infection has limited use. A recent meta-analysis [40] revealed that NLR was greater in non-survivors of sepsis than in survivors, and a larger NLR was linked with a worse prognosis in sepsis patients. Independent of the kind of operation (cardiac or abdominal), preoperative NLR levels are independent predictors of postoperative problems [41,42,43].
In addition, NLR may be used as a predictor for surgical treatment in submandibular abscesses [44] and as a recovery marker in odontogenic infection. Several investigations have demonstrated a correlation between NLR and the occurrence of pus, duration of hospital stay, and antibiotic dosage need [45]. In addition, the NLR value is constant and resistant to physiological and environmental factors, such as dehydration, physical exercise, and blood sample processing, that might influence test findings [46]. In their investigation, Dogruel et al. [47] determined that the NLR was related to hospitalization and antibiotic dosages in individuals with odontogenic infection. Incorporating the NLR into the CRP level has tremendous promise as a biomarker for odontogenic infection severity classification. Our objective was to determine whether CRP and NLR may serve as possible severity indicators in patients with odontogenic infections (OI).
According to several research, despite the increase in frequency, the patient features have remained basically unchanged [48]. The majority of patients were in their mid-30s, which is much younger than the majority of patients in our research, who were in their mid-40s. Furthermore, the amount of time between the beginning of symptoms and hospital presentation stayed comparable in both groups, and the percentage of patients who sought dental treatment prior to hospitalization remained surprisingly high at more than 40%, despite the fact that our study lacks this type of information. In addition, almost two-thirds of patients reported in previous studies had been orally administered antibiotics by their dentist or primary care physician before presenting to the hospital, a number that increased from 57% to 63%. Instead of seeking to cure the underlying cause, it is considered that an over dependence on antibiotics results in suboptimal patient care. Therefore, the need for prediction scores and algorithms is essential to determine the patients at risk.
4.2. Limitations of the Study
Our research has some important limitations and restrictions. To begin, the study was a single-center investigation of patients who had been admitted to the medical facility for odontogenic infections. Second, because of the retrospective design, we had to rely on the data from medical records; as a result, statistical analysis was susceptible to the risk of being inaccurate due to human error. Additionally, the retrospective study design impacts our results, as the research depends on the accuracy of both patient information tracking and the digital transcription of data from paper records. Limited by the retrospective design of our study, we could not perform a dynamic profile analysis of CRP and NLR, which may offer more helpful information. Other limitations are represented by country-specific features, since all patients were from Romania, and the oral hygiene can influence the severity of odontogenic infections. To provide more evidence in support of our results, further prospective research should be carried out.
5. Conclusions
This research aimed to determine whether there is a significant correlation between increased levels of inflammatory serum markers, as measured by the NLR and CRP, and the severity of odontogenic infections, as measured by the Symptom Severity score. The connection between these markers was discovered as an accurate predictor of OI severity. Thus, it can be concluded that CRP-NLR is a reliable and inexpensive biomarker to provide the severity of odontogenic infections that can be incorporated into other prognostic models to help determine the severity of odontogenic infections. Medical practitioners and their dental teams should be instructed to use the NLR-CRP score for the early identification and prognosis of severe odontogenic infections, hence potentially improving disease treatment choices.
Conceptualization: M.P.; methodology: M.P. software: S.U.; validation: O.A.; formal analysis: M.P.; investigation: S.T.; resources: S.T. and O.R.; data curation: O.A.; writing—original draft preparation: O.A. and H.U.; writing—review and editing: S.T. and V.B.; visualization: H.U. and V.B.; supervision: B.A.B. and V.B.; project administration: B.A.B. and O.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Victor Babes, University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Timisoara, with the approval number I-27098 from 14 October 2022.
Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this paper.
Data available on request.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
The Symptom Severity score (SS) of odontogenic infections.
| Criteria | Score | Max Score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systemic Inflammatory |
Temperature > 38.3 °C | 1 | 4 |
| Heart rate > 90 bpm | 1 | ||
| RR 20/min | 1 | ||
| WBC < 4 or >12 × 109 | 1 | ||
| Trismus | Moderate < 2 cm | 3 | 4 |
| Severe < 1 cm | 4 | ||
| Dysphagia | Mild—able to swallow most foods | 2 | 5 |
| Moderate—unable to swallow fluids | 4 | ||
| Severe—drooling saliva | 5 | ||
| Collection in 1 fascial space | Low severity (canine, vestibular) | 1 | 5 |
| Moderate severity (buccal) | 2 | ||
| High severity (all other spaces) | 4 | ||
| Collection in 2 or more fascial spaces | 5 | ||
| Sign of dehydration (↓BP/↑Urea/↓Skin turgor) | 1 | 2 | |
| Comorbidities: diabetes mellitus, immunocompromised status, known or suspected chronic alcohol misuser | 1 | ||
| Total Score | 20 | ||
SIRS—Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome; BP—Blood Pressure; RR—Respiratory Rate; WBC—White Blood Cells.
Comparison of background characteristics among patients with odontogenic infections.
| Variables | Group A (n = 54) | Group B (n = 54) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.236 | ||
| Men | 30 (55.6%) | 36 (66.7%) | |
| Women | 24 (44.4%) | 18 (33.3%) | |
| Age, mean (mean ± SD) | 46.7 ± 17.9 | 51.7 ± 18.1 | 0.150 |
| Age range | 18–81 | 20–85 | NA |
| Place of origin | 0.019 | ||
| Rural | 25 (46.3%) | 37 (68.5%) | |
| Urban | 29 (53.7%) | 17 (31.5%) | |
| Smoking | 0.028 | ||
| Yes | 9 (16.7%) | 19 (35.2%) | |
| No | 45 (83.3%) | 35 (64.8%) | |
| Comorbidities | |||
| Diabetes mellitus | 10 (18.5%) | 28 (51.9%) | <0.001 |
| Obesity | 31 (57.4%) | 37 (68.5%) | 0.231 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 14 (25.9%) | 17 (31.5%) | 0.523 |
| Malignancy | 5 (9.3%) | 7 (13.0%) | 0.540 |
| Others | 2 (3.7%) | 4 (7.4%) | 0.401 |
Data reported as n (%) and calculated using the Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test unless specified differently; median and IQR values compared with Mann–Whitney u-test; IQR—Interquartile range.
Comparison of infection characteristics among patients with odontogenic infections.
| Variables | Group A (n = 54) | Group B (n = 54) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reason for hospitalization | <0.001 | ||
| Abscess | 38 (70.4%) | 17 (31.5%) | |
| Cellulitis | 5 (9.3%) | 7 (13.0%) | |
| Association of abscess and cellulitis | 11 (20.4%) | 30 (55.6%) | |
| Infection site | |||
| Peri-maxillary | 13 (24.1%) | 10 (18.5%) | 0.480 |
| Peri-mandibular | 14 (25.9%) | 18 (33.3%) | 0.399 |
| Superficial lodges | 22 (40.7%) | 26 (48.1%) | 0.438 |
| Deep lodges | 1 (1.9%) | 2 (3.7%) | 0.558 |
| Fascial | 5 (9.3%) | 3 (5.6%) | 0.462 |
| Outcomes | |||
| Sepsis | 4 (7.4%) | 12 (22.2%) | 0.030 |
| ICU admission | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (7.4%) | 0.041 |
| Duration of hospitalization, median (IQR) | 4.1 (2.8) | 12.0 (5.7) | <0.001 |
| Severe complications | 2 (3.7%) | 9 (16.7%) | 0.025 |
| Mortality | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (5.6%) | 0.078 |
Data reported as n (%) and calculated using the Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test unless specified differently; median and IQR values compared with Mann-Whitney u-test; IQR—Interquartile range; ICU—Intensive care unit; SIRS—Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome.
SS score differences among patients with odontogenic infections.
| Variables | Group A (n = 54) | Group B (n = 54) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| SIRS score | <0.001 | ||
| 0 | 14 (25.9%) | 5 (9.2%) | |
| 1 | 18 (33.3%) | 8 (14.8%) | |
| 2 | 10 (18.5%) | 8 (14.8%) | |
| 3 | 6 (11.1%) | 19 (35.2%) | |
| 4 | 1 (1.8%) | 19 (35.2%) | |
| Trismus score | <0.001 | ||
| Normal | 30 (55.6%) | 12 (22.2%) | |
| Moderate | 19 (35.2%) | 15 (27.8%) | |
| Severe | 5 (9.3%) | 27 (50.0%) | |
| Dysphagia score | 0.028 | ||
| Normal | 5 (9.3%) | 18 (33.3%) | |
| Mild | 21 (38.9%) | 16 (29.6%) | |
| Moderate | 17 (31.5%) | 29 (53.7%) | |
| Severe | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (3.7%) | |
| Fascial space score | <0.001 | ||
| Low risk | 39 (0.0%) | 10 (18.5%) | |
| Moderate risk | 23 (42.6%) | 27 (50.0%) | |
| Severe risk | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (14.8%) | |
| Dehydration/Comorbid | 0.001 | ||
| No dehydration and comorbid | 28 (51.9%) | 13 (24.1%) | |
| Dehydration or comorbid | 26 (48.1%) | 22 (40.7%) | |
| Dehydration and comorbid | 3 (5.6%) | 16 (29.6%) |
Data reported as n (%) and calculated using the Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test unless specified differently; SS—Severity Score; SIRS—Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome.
Comparison of severity scores and biomarker scores among patients with odontogenic infections.
| Variables | Group A (n = 54) | Group B (n = 54) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severity scores, (mean ± SD) | |||
| SS | 6.1 ± 1.8 | 13.6 ± 3.9 | <0.001 * |
| SII | 696.3 ± 35.2 | 2312.4 ± 66.0 | <0.001 * |
| Biomarker scores (median, IQR) | |||
| WBC, (median, IQR) | 9.34 (7.92–11.50) | 12.02 (10.3–17) | <0.001 ** |
| WBC_Ne, (median, IQR) | 6.26 (4.68–10.23) | 8.05 (6.73–10.61) | 0.012 ** |
| WBC_Ly, (median, IQR) | 2.04 (1.41–2.7) | 2.56 (2.06–3) | 0.037 ** |
| NLR, (median, IQR) | 3.01 (2.10–4.83) | 3.31 (3–4.37) | 0.239 ** |
| CRP, (median, IQR) | 22 (9–47) | 99 (86–118) | <0.001 ** |
| CRP-NLR, (median, IQR) | 79.00 (22.14–191.4) | 341.47 (256.97–526.30) | <0.001 ** |
SD—standard deviation; SS—Severity Score; SII—Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index; WBC—White Blood Cells; WBC_Ne—White Blood Cells Neutrophils; WBC_Ly—White Blood Cells Lymphocytes; NLR—Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio; CRP—C-Reactive Protein; * Student t-test; ** Kruskal–Wallis test; IQR—Interquartile Range.
Hazard ratios and adjusted odds ratio for SS score calculated at admission for predicting SIRS and sepsis after odontogenic infections.
| Variables | Risk (95% CI) | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| SS (dependent variable) | ||
| WBC | 5.54 (3.18–7.90) | <0.001 |
| WBC_Ne | 7.10 (5.19–9.01) | <0.001 |
| WBC_Ly | 8.62 (7.44–9.81) | <0.001 |
| NLR | 4.46 (3.53–5.40) | <0.001 |
| CRP | 6.65 (5.61–7.70) | <0.001 |
| CRP-NLR | 7.28 (4.83–10.16) | <0.001 |
Data were adjusted for age, comorbidities, and gender; WBC—White Blood Cells; WBC_Ne—White Blood Cells Neutrophils; WBC_Ly—White Blood Cells Lymphocytes; NLR—Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio; CRP—C-Reactive Protein; CI—Confidence Interval.
References
1. Alotaibi, N.; Cloutier, L.; Khaldoun, E.; Bois, E.; Chirat, M.; Salvan, D. Criteria for admission of odontogenic infections at high risk of deep neck space infection. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis.; 2015; 132, pp. 261-264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2015.08.007]
2. Bali, R.K.; Sharma, P.; Gaba, S.; Kaur, A.; Ghanghas, P. A review of complications of odontogenic infections. Natl. J. Maxillofac. Surg.; 2015; 6, pp. 136-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.183867]
3. Blankson, P.-K.; Parkins, G.; Boamah, M.O.; Abdulai, A.E.; Ahmed, A.-M.; Bondorin, S.; Nuamah, I. Severe odontogenic infections: A 5-year review of a major referral hospital in Ghana. Pan Afr. Med. J.; 2019; 32, 71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2019.32.71.17698] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31223362]
4. Sánchez, R.; Mirada, E.; Arias, J.; Paño, J.R.; Burgueño Garcia, M. Severe odontogenic infections: Epidemiological, microbiological and therapeutic factors. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cirugía Bucal; 2011; 16, pp. 670-676. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.16995]
5. Stephens, M.B.; Wiedemer, J.P.; Kushner, G.M. Dental Problems in Primary Care. Am. Fam. Physician; 2018; 98, pp. 654-660.
6. Ince, N.; Güçlü, E.; Sungur, M.A.; Karabay, O. Evaluation of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, platelet to lymphocyte ratio, and lymphocyte to monocyte ratio in patients with cellulitis. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.; 2020; 66, pp. 1077-1081. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.66.8.1077]
7. Shumilah, A.M.; Othman, A.M.; Al-Madhagi, A.K. Accuracy of neutrophil to lymphocyte and monocyte to lymphocyte ratios as new inflammatory markers in acute coronary syndrome. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord.; 2021; 21, 422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02236-7]
8. Spoto, S.; Lupoi, D.M.; Valeriani, E.; Fogolari, M.; Locorriere, L.; Anguissola, G.B.; Battifoglia, G.; Caputo, D.; Coppola, A.; Costantino, S. et al. Diagnostic Accuracy and Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratios in Septic Patients outside the Intensive Care Unit. Medicina; 2021; 57, 811. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina57080811]
9. Gurgus, D.; Grigoras, M.L.; Motoc, A.G.M.; Zamfir, C.L.; Cornianu, M.; Faur, C.I.; Pop, D.L.; Folescu, R. Clinical relevance and accuracy of p63 and TTF-1 for better approach of small cell lung carcinoma versus poorly differentiated nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol.; 2019; 60, pp. 139-143.
10. Bilgen, Ö.; Atici, T.; Durak, K.; Karaeminoğullari,; Bilgen, M.S. C-reactive Protein Values and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rates after Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty. J. Int. Med. Res.; 2001; 29, pp. 7-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147323000102900102]
11. Jundt, J.S.; Gutta, R. Characteristics and cost impact of severe odontogenic infections. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol.; 2012; 114, pp. 558-566. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2011.10.044] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22819453]
12. Sutter, R.; Tschudin-Sutter, S.; Grize, L.; Widmer, A.F.; Marsch, S.; Rüegg, S. Acute phase proteins and white blood cell levels for prediction of infectious complications in status epilepticus. Crit. Care; 2011; 15, R274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc10555] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099124]
13. Boucher, N.E.; Hanrahan, J.J.; Kihara, F.Y. Occurrence of C-Reactive Protein in Oral Disease. J. Dent. Res.; 1967; 46, 624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220345670460033001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5229585]
14. Heimdahl, A.; Nord, C.E. Orofacial infections of odontogenic origin. Scand. J. Infect. Dis.; 1983; 39, pp. 86-91.
15. Stathopoulos, P.; Igoumenakis, D.; Shuttleworth, J.; Smith, W.; Ameerally, P. Predictive factors of hospital stay in patients with odontogenic maxillofacial infections: The role of C-reactive protein. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.; 2017; 55, pp. 367-370. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.11.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27876162]
16. Ioan Faur, C.; Abu-Awwad, A.; Pop, D.L.; Zamfir, C.L.; Gurgus, D.; Hoinoiu, T.; Motoc, A.; Haivas, C.; Grigoraș, M.L.; Folescu, R. Liquid Nitrogen Efficiency in Treatment of Giant Cell Tumor of Bone and Prevention of Recurrence. Appl. Sci.; 2020; 10, 6310. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10186310]
17. Pepys, M.B.; Hirschfield, G.M. C-reactive protein: A critical update. J. Clin. Investig.; 2003; 111, pp. 1805-1812. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1172/JCI200318921]
18. De Jager, C.P.; Van Wijk, P.T.; Mathoera, R.B.; De Jongh-Leuvenink, J.; Van Der Poll, T.; Wever, P.C. Lymphocytopenia and neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio predict bacteremia better than conventional infection markers in an emergency care unit. Crit. Care; 2010; 14, R192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc9309]
19. Lowsby, R.; Gomes, C.; Jarman, I.; Lisboa, P.; Nee, P.A.; Vardhan, M.; Eckersley, T.; Saleh, R.; Mills, H. Neutrophil to lymphocyte count ratio as an early indicator of bloodstream infection in the emergency department. Emerg. Med. J.; 2015; 32, pp. 531-534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2014-204071]
20. Jiang, J.; Liu, R.; Yu, X.; Yang, R.; Xu, H.; Mao, Z.; Wang, Y. The neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio as a diagnostic marker for bacteremia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Emerg. Med.; 2019; 37, pp. 1482-1489. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.10.057]
21. Belei, O.; Ancusa, O.; Mara, A.; Olariu, L.; Amaricai, E.; Folescu, R.; Zamfir, C.L.; Gurgus, D.; Motoc, A.G.; Stanga, L.C. et al. Current Paradigm of Hepatitis E Virus Among Pediatric and Adult Patients. Front. Pediatr.; 2021; 30, 721918. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.721918] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34660485]
22. Niu, D.; Huang, Q.; Yang, F.; Tian, W.; Li, C.; Ding, L.; Fang, H.-C.; Zhao, Y. Serum biomarkers to differentiate Gram-negative, Gram-positive and fungal infection in febrile patients. J. Med. Microbiol.; 2021; 70, 001360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001360] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34259621]
23. Li, W.; Hou, M.; Ding, Z.; Liu, X.; Shao, Y.; Li, X. Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Neurol.; 2021; 12, 686983. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.686983] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34630275]
24. Lee, M.-J.; Park, S.-D.; Kwon, S.W.; Woo, S.-I.; Lee, M.-D.; Shin, S.-H.; Kim, D.-H.; Kwan, J.; Park, K.-S. Relation Between Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Index of Microcirculatory Resistance in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Am. J. Cardiol.; 2016; 118, pp. 1323-1328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.07.072] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27600462]
25. Adamstein, N.H.; MacFadyen, J.G.; Rose, L.M.; Glynn, R.J.; Dey, A.K.; Libby, P.; Tabas, I.A.; Mehta, N.N.; Ridker, P.M. The neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio and incident atherosclerotic events: Analyses from five contemporary randomized trials. Eur. Heart J.; 2021; 42, pp. 896-903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa1034]
26. Park, J.M. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in trauma patients. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg.; 2017; 82, pp. 225-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001266]
27. Lee, P.Y.; Oen, K.Q.X.; Lim, G.R.S.; Hartono, J.L.; Muthiah, M.; Huang, D.Q.; Teo, F.S.W.; Li, A.Y.; Mak, A.; Chandran, N.S. et al. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Development of Immune-Related Adverse Events and Outcomes from Immune Checkpoint Blockade: A Case-Control Study. Cancers; 2021; 13, 1308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13061308]
28. Fest, J.; Ruiter, T.R.; Koerkamp, B.G.; Rizopoulos, D.; Ikram, M.A.; Van Eijck, C.H.J.; Stricker, B.H. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is associated with mortality in the general population: The Rotterdam Study. Eur. J. Epidemiol.; 2019; 34, pp. 463-470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0472-y]
29. Miloro, M.; Ghali, G.E.; Larsen, P.; Waite, P. Peterson’s Principles of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; 3rd ed. People’s Medical Publishing House: Shelton, CT, USA, 2012; pp. 841-861.
30. Sainuddin, S.; Hague, R.; Howson, K.; Clark, S. New admission scoring criteria for patients with odontogenic infections: A pilot study. J. Oral Maxilloc. Surg.; 2016; 55, pp. 86-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.05.003]
31. Steindel, S.J. International classification of diseases, 10th edition, clinical modification and procedure coding system: Descriptive overview of the next generation HIPAA code sets. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.; 2010; 17, pp. 274-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2009.001230]
32. Lambden, S.; Laterre, P.F.; Levy, M.M.; Francois, B. The SOFA score—Development, utility and challenges of accurate assessment in clinical trials. Crit. Care; 2019; 23, 374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2663-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31775846]
33. Seppänen, L.; Rautemaa, R.; Lindqvist, C.; Lauhio, A.; Richardson, R. Changing clinical features of odontogenic maxillofacial infections. Clin. Oral Investig.; 2010; 14, pp. 459-465. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0281-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19449042]
34. Burnham, R.; Bhandari, R.; Bridle, C. Changes in admission rates for spreading odontogenic infection resulting from changes in government policy about the dental schedule and remunerations. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.; 2011; 49, pp. 26-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.10.033] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20083328]
35. Edman-Wallér, J.; Ljungström, L.; Jacobsson, G.; Andersson, R.; Werner, M. Systemic symptoms predict presence or development of severe sepsis and septic shock. Infect. Dis.; 2015; 48, pp. 209-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/23744235.2015.1104719]
36. Póvoa, P.; Coelho, L.; Almeida, E.; Fernandes, A.; Mealha, R.; Moreira, P.; Sabino, H. Early identification of intensive care unit-acquired infections with daily monitoring of C-reactive protein: A prospective observational study. Crit. Care; 2006; 10, R63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc4892]
37. Bagul, R.; Chandan, S.; Sane, V.D.; Patil, S.; Yadav, D. Comparative Evaluation of C-Reactive Protein and WBC Count in Fascial Space Infections of Odontogenic Origin. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.; 2016; 16, pp. 238-242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12663-016-0953-z]
38. John, C.R.; Gandhi, S.; Singh, I.; James, T.T. Efficacy of C-Reactive protein as a marker in patients with odontogenic fascial space infection: A prospective analytical study. J. NTR Univ. Health. Sci.; 2021; 10, pp. 76-81.
39. Barreto, V.T.; Isaac, A.; Bhimidi, P.; Nguyen, C.; Jones, G. Trends of C-Reactive Protein Laboratory Values With White Blood Cell Count Levels in Maxillofacial Infections. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.; 2013; 71, pp. 31-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2013.06.055]
40. Huang, Z.; Fu, Z.; Huang, W.; Huang, K. Prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in sepsis: A meta-analysis. Am. J. Emerg. Med.; 2020; 38, pp. 641-647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.10.023]
41. Josse, J.M.; Cleghorn, M.C.; Ramji, K.M.; Jiang, H.; Elnahas, A.; Jackson, T.D.; Okrainec, A.; Quereshy, F.A. The neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio predicts major perioperative complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Color. Dis.; 2016; 18, pp. 236-242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/codi.13373]
42. Silberman, S.; Abu-Yunis, U.; Tauber, R.; Shavit, L.; Grenader, T.; Fink, D.; Bitran, D.; Merin, O. Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio: Prognostic Impact in Heart Surgery. Early Outcomes and Late Survival. Ann. Thorac. Surg.; 2018; 105, pp. 581-586. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.07.033] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29132702]
43. Hajibandeh, S.; Hajibandeh, S.; Hobbs, N.; Mansour, M. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts acute appendicitis and distinguishes between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Surg.; 2020; 219, pp. 154-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.04.018] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31056211]
44. Gallagher, N.; Collyer, J.; Bowe, C.M. Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio as a Prognostic Marker of Deep Neck Space Infections Secondary to Odontogenic Infection. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.; 2021; 59, pp. 228-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.075] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33229061]
45. Russell, C.D.; Parajuli, A.; Gale, H.J.; Bulteel, N.S.; Schuetz, P.; de Jager, C.P.; Loonen, A.J.; Merekoulias, G.I.; Baillie, J.K. The utility of peripheral blood leucocyte ratios as biomarkers in infectious diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Infect.; 2019; 78, pp. 339-348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2019.02.006] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30802469]
46. Vatankhah, N.; Jahangiri, Y.; Landry, G.J.; McLafferty, R.B.; Alkayed, N.J.; Moneta, G.L.; Azarbal, A.F. Predictive value of neutrophil-to lymphocyte ratio in diabetic wound healing. J. Vasc. Surg.; 2017; 65, pp. 478-483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2016.08.108]
47. Dogruel, F.; Gonen, Z.-B.; Gunay-Canpolat, D.; Zararsiz, G.; Alkan, A. The Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte ratio as a marker of recovery status in patients with severe dental infection. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal.; 2017; 22, pp. 440-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.21915]
48. Fu, B.; McGowan, K.; Sun, J.H.; Batstone, M. Increasing frequency and severity of odontogenic infection requiring hospital admission and surgical management. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.; 2020; 58, pp. 409-415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.01.011]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Serban Talpos 4 ; Urechescu, Horatiu 4 ; Ursoniu, Sorin 5
; Bloanca, Vlad 6 ; Pricop, Marius 4 1 Department XIII, Discipline of Infectious Diseases, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Eftimie Murgu Square 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
2 Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, University Street 1, 410087 Oradea, Romania
3 Department V, Discipline of Medical Semiology I, Faculty of General Medicine, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Eftimie Murgu Square 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
4 Discipline of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Eftimie Murgu Square 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
5 Department of Functional Sciences, Center for Translational Research and Systems Medicine, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Eftimie Murgu Square 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
6 Department of Plastic Surgery, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Eftimie Murgu Square 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania