Search

Implant periapical lesion (IPL) is also known as retrograde peri-implantitis and as the name suggests, it involves inflammation surrounding the apical part of the dental implants. Previously, many studies have reported the event of IPL that further delays osseointegration, and some reported failure of implant placement due to this disease. In this article, we described two cases of early dental implant failure that was associated with active IPL and correlated the clinical and radiographical findings with the histopathological findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To describe implant survival at least 1 year after the surgical treatment of early apical peri-implantitis (EAP) and explore potential risk factors of failure of such treatment. Materials and methods: An ambispective cohort study was conducted, involving all patients in whom EAP was detected and surgically treated between 1996 and 2016. Reporting followed the STROBE guidelines. The time from implant placement (IP) to EAP surgery (EAPS), the diagnostic stage and intraoperative variables (location, apical lesion in the tooth being replaced, mesial and distal tooth-implant distance measured at the apex, periapical surgery of the adjacent tooth, guided bone regeneration, implant resection, explantation) were recorded to determine their impact upon treatment outcome. Results: The initial sample consisted of 58 implants in 46 patients. The mean time from IP to EAPS was 21.7 ± 10.1 days. At the time of surgery, eight implants presented mobility and were explanted. The final sample consisted of 50 implants in 39 patients evaluated for implant survival after surgical treatment. A cumulative survival rate of 78.3% was recorded. The mean survival time of the EAP treated implants was 85.4 months (standard deviation [SD] 5.94). The diagnostic stage (P < 0.001) and the existence of a previous periapical lesion in the tooth being replaced (P = 0.022) had a significant influence upon implant survival. Conclusions: The cumulative survival rate was 78.3%, with a mean survival time of 85.4 months. The diagnostic stage of EAP and the presence of a lesion in the tooth being replaced significantly influenced the survival of implants with EAP subjected to surgical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To report 20 cases with implant periapical pathology diagnosed during the osseointegration phase, evaluating retrospectively the efficacy of the treatment with implant periapical surgery. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients in whom implant periapical surgery was performed between 1996 and 2010. The criteria for diagnosing implant periapical pathology and, accordingly, performing implant periapical surgery were: (1) acute pain during the osseointegration period (8 weeks after implant placement) located in the area of the affected implant or presence of mucous fistula in relation with the implant apex; (2) absence of implant mobility; (3) non-dull percussion of nonsubmerged implants; and (4) presence or absence of implant periapical radiolucency. Results: Twenty-two implants were diagnosed with periapical pathology in 20 patients (13 women and 7 men) with a mean age of 54.3 years (range, 32 to 70 years) and were consecutively treated by a surgical approach. In 19 implants, the diagnosis was acute apical peri-implantitis (nonsuppurated in 7 cases and suppurated in 12), as based on the symptoms and radiographic sign, and in 3 cases it was subacute apical peri-implantitis, as based on the presence of a fistula. After a minimum follow-up of 1 year, 20 implants remained functional, with no clinical or radiologic alterations; the survival rate of the treated implants was 91%. Conclusion: The early diagnosis of inflammatory implant periapical lesions during the osseintegration phase, and their prompt surgical treatment, led to a survival rate of the treated implants of 91%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various terms, etiologies, and treatment strategies have been suggested in conjunction with bone loss limited only to the apical portion of an implant that remains otherwise well osseointegrated. Proposed etiologic factors include bone overheating, microbial involvement of adjacent teeth, pre-existing bone infection, and overload. However, the mandible and maxilla seem to have different predispositions in response to these causative agents. Treatment protocols for peri-implant infection have included minimally invasive approaches such as granulation tissue removal and detoxification of the implant surface, as well as more aggressive measures. This case report demonstrates the achievement of osseous healing and reosseointegration in a patient who presented with presented apical bone loss and signs of infection around a mandibular implant. Reosseointegration was achieved following an intraoral apicoectomy-like approach, ie, removal of the infected nonintegrated portion of the implant, and meticulous debridement of the granulation tissue. A literature review of 13 relevant published studies was conducted. The current understandings regarding the etiology and treatment strategies for management of apical bone loss around dental implants are summarized and presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implant periapical lesion (IPL) is an infectious-inflammatory alteration surrounding an implant apex. It is a multifactorial disease that may ultimately cause implant failure. The diagnosis of IPL is based on examination of clinical manifestations and apical radiolucency. Many etiologies have been attributed to IPL, including preexisting microbial pathology and surgical trauma. Moreover, many systems have been used to classify IPL based on different parameters. To date, non-surgical and surgical treatment, as well as removal of failed implants, have been considered to successfully manage IPL. However, prevention of IPL surpasses all modes of treatment. An increased number of IPL cases are expected as implants have become standard for tooth replacement in dentate arches. Therefore, it is necessary to understand IPL more comprehensively. Herein, an introduction to IPL, including its etiology, diagnosis, classification, treatment, and prevention, has been undertaken.

Purpose: To explore risk indicators potentially associated with early apical peri-implantitis (EAP). Materials and methods: A retrospective survey was performed in 2017 with recorded information from patients receiving dental implants between 1996 and 2016. Reporting follows the STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) guidelines. Data were collected from the medical histories and radiographs: diagnosis of EAP (health/disease), gender, age, type of surgery (immediate/delayed placement), implants placed (position, width, length, location, mesial and distal tooth-implant distance measured at the apex, state of the adjacent tooth and tooth being replaced, and surgical complications. Once the EAP had developed, data were collected regarding days of evolution, symptoms, signs and radiological findings. Results: A total of 2548 patients (57.1% females and 42.9% males) with 8110 implants were enrolled in the study. 46 patients with 58 implants were diagnosed with EAP -- 23 in the maxilla (39.6%) and 35 in the mandible (60.4%) -- between 6 and 50 days after implant placement, with a mean period of 21.7 days (SD 10.1). The frequency of EAP was 1.81% in patients and 0.71% in implants. Immediate placement multiplied the odds of developing EAP 21-fold (95% CI 6.74 to 65.7; P < 0.001) versus delayed placement. The existence of an apical lesion in the tooth being replaced multiplied the odds of developing EAP 26.3-fold (95% CI 4.24 to 162.8; P < 0.001). Replacing a tooth endodontically treated increased the odds 3.48 times (95% CI 0.99 to 12.3; P = 0.052). The presence of an adjacent endodontically treated tooth increased the odds 0.97-fold (95% CI 0.26 to 3.60; P = 0.963). An apical mesial distance of ≤ 1.5 mm increased the odds up to 5.12-fold (95%CI 2.12 to 12.4; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The presence of endodontic periapical lesions or endodontic treatment in the tooth being replaced, immediate implant placement or mesial tooth-implant distance measured at the apex were significantly associated with increased odds of EAP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Successful treatment of a large implant periapical lesion (IPL) that caused paraesthesia and perimandibular abscess. IPL is a pathologic phenomenon that rarely involves implants. This event first described in 1992 with an incidence rate of 0.26-9.9% and the origin is not well known. The most likely suggested causes are presence of preexisting bone pathology, contamination of implant surface, bone overheating during implant surgery, vascular ischemia, excessive tightening of the implant, fenestration of the buccal plate and different implant surface designs. In the present case report, we describe relatively large periapical lesions involving several implants caused severe abscess accompanied by transient inferior alveolar nerve paraesthesia and its successful management. A brief review of the literature and a discussion of possible causes and different treatment plans are also included.

Adjacent natural teeth with untreated pulpal or periodontal pathology may be a potential risk for implant infection. We report a rare case of an implant periapical lesion (IPL) possibly caused by direct extension of a periradicular lesion of an adjacent tooth. A 40-year-old female patient, who had previously received three implants on the edentulous areas of teeth 16, 36 and 46, had a recurrent infection over the lower left second molar area for 2 years. A periapical radiograph revealed incomplete root canal treatment and an infrabony defect on the mesial side of the lower left second molar; the defect extended to the apical third of the adjacent implant on tooth 36. Open flap debridement was performed 1 year after implant placement, but pain and swelling persisted for another year. Therefore, the second molar was extracted at the patient's request. The patient was unable to seek earlier and prompt treatment as she was abroad; therefore, we were able to observe the progression of severity in the IPL. One year after the extraction, the symptoms had subsided, and a periapical radiograph showed that the radiolucent lesion had decreased in size. She was followed for another 1.5 years and showed marked improvement. In this case, the IPL probably originated from the endodontic-periodontic problem of the adjacent molar, and the infected implant was saved by removing the infection source. We also discuss the treatment and prognosis of IPLs. To prevent the occurrence of an IPL, it is important to evaluate the pulpal and periodontal status of the teeth near the implant site when making a comprehensive treatment plan for an implant.

Successful treatment of a large implant periapical lesion (IPL) that caused paraesthesia and perimandibular abscess. IPL is a pathologic phenomenon that rarely involves implants. This event first described in 1992 with an incidence rate of 0.26-9.9% and the origin is not well known. The most likely suggested causes are presence of preexisting bone pathology, contamination of implant surface, bone overheating during implant surgery, vascular ischemia, excessive tightening of the implant, fenestration of the buccal plate and different implant surface designs. In the present case report, we describe relatively large periapical lesions involving several implants caused severe abscess accompanied by transient inferior alveolar nerve paraesthesia and its successful management. A brief review of the literature and a discussion of possible causes and different treatment plans are also included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implant periapical lesion (IPL), an inflammatory lesion surrounding the apex of a dental implant, has been previously reported as a possible cause for implant failure. This article describes 2 successive cases of active IPL that were diagnosed early by clinical signs and radiologic findings. Lesions were treated surgically with implant removal and debridement. The etiology, findings, and treatment approaches for IPL are discussed in comparison with other reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Active implant periapical lesion (IPL) is a rare lesion which has been reported as one of the causes of dental implant failures. Usually, an affected implant shows radiolucency in the apical area, while remaining clinically stable. IPL is often accompanied by symptoms of pain, swelling, tenderness, and fistulation. In this paper, we describe two cases of IPL with very unusual findings which led to implant failure. A large IPL associated with an inflammatory cyst in the anterior maxilla, and a mandibular IPL resulting in an extra-oral fistula are presented. The etiology and treatment approaches for IPL are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Swedish Dental Journal is the property of Swedish Dental Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The etiologies and mechanisms of implant failure are multifactorial. Implant periapical lesion (IPL) is one possible cause of implant failure. IPL is an infectious-inflammatory alterations surrounding an implant apex. The diagnosis is based on the clinical manifestations and radiological findings, where a radiolucent lesion can be seen in the periapical area. It is apparent that IPL has a multifactorial background, mainly caused by the presence of a preexisting microbial pathology or surgical trauma during implant surgery. To date, there are no clinical protocols for managing IPL. However, while the etiologies of IPL are still not clearly known, successful treatment is available. The low incidence of pathosis may be due to selective placement of edentulous arches in earlier years. As implants become standard for dentate arches, more of these lesions may be expected. Additional data are certainly necessary for a more-comprehensive understanding of the etiopathologic and clinical problems related to IPL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implant periapical lesion (IPL) is an infectious-inflammatory alteration surrounding an implant apex. It is a multifactorial disease that may ultimately cause implant failure. The diagnosis of IPL is based on examination of clinical manifestations and apical radiolucency. Many etiologies have been attributed to IPL, including preexisting microbial pathology and surgical trauma. Moreover, many systems have been used to classify IPL based on different parameters. To date, non-surgical and surgical treatment, as well as removal of failed implants, have been considered to successfully manage IPL. However, prevention of IPL surpasses all modes of treatment. An increased number of IPL cases are expected as implants have become standard for tooth replacement in dentate arches. Therefore, it is necessary to understand IPL more comprehensively. Herein, an introduction to IPL, including its etiology, diagnosis, classification, treatment, and prevention, has been undertaken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]