Abscess formation around the apex of a maxillary root form implant: clinical and microscopical aspects. A case report

A novel histopathological classification of implant periapical lesion: A systematic review and treatment decision tree

BACKGROUND

Implant periapical lesion (IPL), as a peri-implant disease originating from implant apex, maintains coronal osseointegration in the early stage. With the understanding to IPL increasingly deepened, IPL classification based on different elements was proposed although there still lacks an overall classification system. This study, aiming to systematically integrate the available data published in the literature on IPL associated with histopathology, proposed a comprehensive classification framework and treatment decision tree for IPL.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

English articles on the topic of "implant periapical lesion", "retrograde peri-implantitis" and "apical peri-implantitis" were searched on PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from 1992 to 2021, and citation retrieval was performed for critical articles. Definite histopathology and radiology of IPL are indispensable criteria for including the article in the literature. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022378001). A total of 509 papers identified, 28 studies were included in this review. In only one retrospective study, 37 of 39 IPL were reported to be at the inflammatory or abscess stage. 27 cases (37 implants) were reported, including acute non-suppurative (1/37, developed to chronic granuloma), chronic granuloma (5/37), acute suppurated (2/37), chronic suppurated-fistulized (6/37), implant periapical cyst (21/37), poor bone healing (2/37), foreign body reaction (1/37). Antibiotics alone did not appear to be effective, and the consequence of surgical debridement required cautious interpretation because of the heterogeneity of lesion course and operation. Implant apicoectomy and marsupialization were predictable approaches in some cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The diversiform nature of IPL in the case reports confirms the need for such histopathological classification, which may enhance the comparison and management of different category.

Dental Implant Survival after Postoperative Infection

Purpose

Early postoperative infection can lead to dental implant failure. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of failed and survived implants after acute postoperative infection and the related factors.

Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional cohort evaluated early infection after dental implant surgery. The study variables included the site of implant placement, age and gender of patients, bone augmentation, postoperative antibiotic therapy, smoking, and time of infection occurrence or diagnosis. Failed and survived implants were the outcome of the study. The patients were studied in 2 groups of survived implants (group 1) and failed implants (group 2).

Results

Thirty-four (3.46%) out of 980 patients developed a postoperative infection following implant placement, which included 25 males and 9 females. Ten implants (29.4%) survived (group 1), and 24 implants (70.6%) failed (group 2). There were significant differences between the 2 groups regarding the number of smoker patients, fresh socket or delayed implant placement, patients who received bone graft, and the meantime of diagnosis (P < 0.05). Regarding the covariates, the Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the risk of implant failure in patients who did not receive postoperative antibiotic therapy increased by 1.1 times (hazard ratio) when infection occurred four days after surgery. In patients who received postoperative antibiotics, the risk of failure increased when infection occurred after 6 days in smokers and after 9 days in non-smokers.

Conclusion

Considering the study results, it seems that smoking, early infection, fresh socket placement, and placement of implants along with bone substitutes may increase the failure rate after acute infection in dental implant placement.

Implant Periapical Lesion: Clinical and Histological Analysis of Two Case Reports Carried Out with Two Different Approaches

Periapical implantitis (IPL) is an increasingly frequent complication of dental implants. The causes of this condition are not yet entirely clear, although a bacterial component is certainly part of the etiology. In this case series study, two approaches will be described: because of persistent IPL symptoms, a patient had the implant removed and underwent histological analysis after week 6 from implantation. The histomorphometric examination revealed a 35% bone-implant contact area involving the coronal two-thirds of the implant. The apical portion of the fixture on the other hand was affected by an inflammatory process detectable on radiography as a radiolucent area. The presence of a probable root fragment, detectable as an imprecise radiopaque mass in the zone where the implant was later placed, confirms the probable bacterial etiology of this case of IPL. On the other hand, in case number 2, the presence of IPL around the fixture was solved by surgically removing the implant apical third as well as the adjacent tooth apex. It may be concluded from our histological examination that removal of the apical portion of the fixture should be considered an effective treatment for IPL since the remaining implant segment remains optimally osseointegrated and capable of continuing its function as a prosthetic abutment. Careful attention, however, is required at the implantation planning stage to identify in advance any sources of infection in the edentulous area of interest which might compromise the final outcome.

Streptococcus anginosus Dental Implant-Related Osteomyelitis of the Jaws: An Insidious and Calamitous Entity

PURPOSE

We analyzed the data from a series of patients with dental implant-related suppurative osteomyelitis of the jaws (DIOMJ) due to Streptococcus anginosus.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The medical records of all patients seen for osteomyelitis of the jaws from 2011 to 2016 were reviewed. The primary outcome variable was Streptococcus anginosus DIOMJ. Other variables included age, gender, smoking habits, associated comorbidities, dental implant localization, type of osteomyelitis, delay between dental implant placement and DIOMJ, microbiologic examination and antibiogram, antibiotherapy, type of surgery, and final outcome. Cases from previous reports of DIOMJ were also analyzed for comparison. Finally, descriptive statistics were computed.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients had jaw osteomyelitis; in 6 patients (26%), jaw osteomyelitis had developed after dental implant placement. S. anginosus was found in 5 patients and Escherichia coli in 1. The osteomyelitis was located in the mandible and associated with a deep neck abscess in all cases. All the patients were women and were either smokers or had comorbidities affecting bone metabolism. In all 6 cases, the dental implants were removed, and several surgical debridement procedures (≥2) and prolonged antibiotherapy (average of 6 months) were needed. Of the 6 patients, 3 required a radical surgical reconstructive procedure with partial resection and bone grafting.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that Streptococcus anginosus DIOMJ is a particularly aggressive form of osteomyelitis that has a propensity to develop in the mandible of women in their 60s who are either smokers or have comorbidities.

Histopathological spectrum of bone lesions associated with dental implant failure: osteomyelitis and beyond

Early or late post-implant placement complications are usually localized infectious/inflammatory processes and treated accordingly. If the healing process does not take place within a reasonable timeframe, the possibility of a pathologic process beyond localized infection/inflammation should be suspected. We describe a radiological/histopathological spectrum of bony lesions ranging from inflammatory to malignant lesions surrounding failed dental implants. Five cases of mandibular dental implant failure that clinically, radiologically and histopathologically appeared to be inflammatory processes are presented. The failure of the dental implants was immediate in two cases and late in the remaining three. The radiological features were essentially similar for all five, and they included radiolucent or mixed radiolucent-radiopaque lesions with poorly defined borders. Three lesions were limited to the area of the failed implant, while the other two extended to a large part of the mandible. The histopathological findings ranged from acute osteomyelitis and chronic osteomyelitis with features of a fibro-osseous-like lesion and occasional rimming of atypical osteoblasts to osteogenic sarcoma that was admixed with a component of osteomyelitis (diagnosis of the latter was achieved only after a series of biopsies). In-depth investigative procedures are imperative in order to establish an accurate diagnosis whenever the histopathological diagnosis is inconsistent with persisting clinical signs and symptoms in bone lesions associated with failed dental implants.

Implant Periapical Lesions: Etiology and Treatment Options

Implant failures due to apical pathology are conditions that have not been extensively studied nor reported in the literature. The implant periapical lesion (IPAL) has different symptoms, and several etiologies have been proposed in the literature. This article reviews cases of IPAL reported in peer-reviewed journals and presents possible treatment options. Analysis of the data collected was performed based on diagnosis, cause of extraction of the natural tooth, location, period of implant placement, implant surface, and treatment approach. Even the data presented in this review are based on few reported cases the etiology of these lesions seems to be multifactorial or with an unknown origin. Contamination of the implant surface, bone overheating during surgery, excessive torquing of the implant, poor bone quality, perforation or thinning of the cortical bone, premature or excessive load over the fixture, fracture of the bone inside the hollow portion of the hollow implant, and an implant placement in an infected maxillary sinus have been discussed. In general, areas around endodontically compromised teeth should be carefully analyzed prior to implant placement to prevent implant failures.

Extra-oral fistula caused by a dental implant

Dental implantation has become an important procedure for both dental treatment and head and neck reconstructive surgery. However, this useful technique sometimes results in peri-implantitis. We describe a rare complication of peri-implantitis in the maxilla which extended to the soft tissue and caused an extra-oral fistula above the alar region. The patient underwent the placement of dental implants in the maxilla 8 years earlier. Radiography showed osteolysis of the maxilla and implant exposure. After the implants were removed, the patient was fitted with a conventional fixed partial denture. Such unfavorable outcomes are caused by failed endodontic and apicoectomy procedures.

Impact of supportive periodontal therapy and implant surface roughness on implant outcome in patients with a history of periodontitis

OBJECTIVE

This review searched for a relationship between susceptibility to periodontitis and peri-implantitis, with implant outcome as the primary outcome variable and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) and implant surface roughness as confounding factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

It is based on a MEDLINE search up to June 2006. Only 16 fulfilled the selection criteria. The heterogeneity of the studies (e.g. periodontal status, SPT, prosthetic design, ...) rendered a meta-analysis impossible. The impact of a history of periodontitis on early implant loss was negligible. Only five papers reported sub-data for patients with different degrees of periodontitis. Four out of five papers indicate a higher incidence of late implant loss and/or marginal bone loss in patients with a history of periodontitis. This difference was most obvious for very rough implants (three papers), and/or when SPT was not organized (one paper). Other confounding factors were often neglected. Another 10 papers only reported the outcome of implants in patients with a history of periodontitis. In case of SPT and when avoiding roughened surfaces, late implant loss remained below 3%, and marginal bone loss remained low.

CONCLUSIONS

These results seem to indicate that periodontally compromised patients can be successfully treated with minimally/moderately rough implants, in the presence of SPT.

Bone Grafting Procedures for Osseous Defects Associated with Dental Implants

The purpose of this study was to clinically and radiographically evaluate the use of bone grafting therapy for treatment of osseous defects before implant surgery. After bone graft reconstruction, implants may be placed in previous areas of osseous defect with the expectation of long-term positive results.

Submental Cutaneous Sinus Tract as a Result of Progressive Peri-Implantitis: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present case report was to define diagnosis and treatment options of a submental cutaneous sinus tract as a result of a progressive peri-implantitis around mandibular dental implants in a patient with a history of oral squamous cell carcinoma.

METHODS

Before the removal of the submental fistula, a panoramic radiograph and a computed tomography of the head and neck were assessed to identify the implants responsible for the cutaneous sinus tract and to exclude the presence of a tumor recurrence and lymph node metastases. The involved implants were removed, as there was a communication along them between the oral cavity and the cutaneous sinus tract resulting from progressive peri-implantitis. A histological examination of the excised fistula was carried out.

RESULTS

The histological examination excluded a recurrence of the oral squamous cell carcinoma. The fistula completely consisted of granulation tissue without epithelialization. After affected implants were removed, the wound healing was uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

A panoramic radiograph is mandatory to identify the involved implants. Computed tomography, and excision of the fistula and a histological examination should be performed only in patients with a history of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Since the cutaneous sinus tract showed no epithelialization, it healed spontaneously after the removal of the responsible implants. Because of the large bony defect caused by progressive peri-implantitis leading to a communication of the oral cavity with the cutaneous sinus tract, more conservative treatment options with preservation of the implants could not be adopted in the present case.

Effect of teeth with periradicular lesions on adjacent dental implants

OBJECTIVES

It is generally accepted that dental implants should not be placed in infected sites. However, the effect of periradicular infections of natural teeth on adjacent osseointegrated implants is less understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effects of periradicular lesions on osseointegration of existing implants. Study design Forty titanium solid root-form implants were placed close to premolars in dogs. After healing following implant placement, the adjacent premolars were treated in 1 of 4 ways: group A, no treatment of the adjacent premolar; group B, induction of a periradicular lesion followed by nonsurgical root canal therapy of the premolar; group C, induction of a periradicular lesion followed by nonsurgical root canal therapy of the premolar and surgical detoxification of the implant surface; and group D, induction of periradicular lesion and no treatment of the tooth. After 7(1/2) months, block sections were prepared and the percentage of osseointegration was analyzed histomorphometrically.

RESULTS

The average integration for implants in groups A-B was 54%, 74%, 56%, and 68%, respectively. One-way analysis of variance demonstrated no difference between the 4 groups ( P =.518).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that teeth with periradicular lesions do not adversely affect adjacent titanium solid root-form implants.

Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature

The use of oral implants in the rehabilitation of partially and fully edentulous patients is widely accepted even though failures do occur. The chance for implants to integrate can for example be jeopardised by the intra-oral presence of bacteria and concomitant inflammatory reactions. The longevity of osseointegrated implants can be compromised by occlusal overload and/or plaque-induced peri-implantitis, depending on the implant geometry and surface characteristics. Animal studies, cross-sectional and longitudinal observations in man, as well as association studies indicate that peri-implantitis is characterised by a microbiota comparable to that of periodontitis (high proportion of anaerobic Gram-negative rods, motile organisms and spirochetes), but this does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. However, in order to prevent such a bacterial shift, the following measures can be considered: periodontal health in the remaining dentition (to prevent bacterial translocation), the avoidance of deepened peri-implant pockets, and the use of a relatively smooth abutment and implant surface. Finally, periodontitis enhancing factors such as smoking and poor oral hygiene also increase the risk for peri-implantitis. Whether the susceptibility for periodontitis is related to that for peri-implantitis may vary according to the implant type and especially its surface topography.

Periapical abscess formation and resolution adjacent to dental implants: a clinical report

The vitality of teeth adjacent to dental implants should be considered in the treatment planning of dental implants. Both the restorability of an endodontically treated tooth and the risk of infection of the adjacent implant are important factors in planning for success. Given the illustrated difficulties and difficulties associated with resolving periapical infections of teeth and implants, it is essential to define the vitality of teeth by careful pulp testing and to consider the integrity of existing questionable, endodontically treated teeth before implant treatment. The risk of periapical infection at teeth adjacent to implants must be minimized.