https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5663-6153
Figures
Abstract
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.
Citation: Gong J, Zhao R, Yu Z, Li J, Mei M (2022) A novel histopathological classification of implant periapical lesion: A systematic review and treatment decision tree. PLoS ONE 17(12): e0277387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277387
Editor: Fahad Umer, Aga Khan University Hospital, PAKISTAN
Received: October 25, 2022; Accepted: December 6, 2022; Published: December 22, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Gong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.
Funding: Our research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province (20JR10RA006). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Intraoral implants, possessing the advantage of not affecting the integrity of adjacent teeth and the esthetic properties, have frequently been adopted to complete dentition defects since the concept of osseointegration was put forward [1]. Inevitable implant-related complications have also emerged with implant periapical lesion (IPL) first described as an independent disease entity by McAllister et al in 1992 [2]. Compared to the progression and the affected portion of periimplantitis [3], IPL, originating at the implant tip, maintained normal coronal bone in the early stage.
Previous studies briefly classified IPL as active or inactive in accordance with signs and symptoms [4, 5]. Understandably, active IPL had a tendency to expand and spread proximally, coronally or facially, with localized pain, mucosal swelling, and fistulas. Different etiologies were proposed to play a part in active IPL such as bone overheating during osteotomy, residual infection of the implant bed, and adjacent endodontic lesion [4, 5]. Correspondingly, several terms were used to describe these phenomena, including retrograde periimplantitis, apical periimplantitis and endodontic periimplantitis. Moreover, there also appeared inactive IPL when radiographic manifestations were not relevant to clinical symptoms [4, 5]. The overpreparation of implant bed and the placement of the implant around scar tissue were generally considered to be induced causes.
Of concern was the appearance of a cyst at the implant tip. From the case reports [6–8], implantation may stimulate epithelial residual or inflammatory transformation to formulate cyst at the implant tip, which might cause localized pain, mucosal swelling, and implant mobility. Radiologically, it was indistinguishable from the previously enumerated IPL types. The previously proposed classifications [4, 5, 9–11] (Table 1) omitted implant periapical cyst, which is surprising for the symptom that potentially causes implant failure.
At present, there is a lack of a feasible, comprehensive method to both classify and report all conditions present in implant periapical area. At the end, we proposed a novel classification, in which corresponding treatment decision tree was designed to assess its capability to comprise ever-increasing complexity of manifestation and management. Through a systematic review of the literature evidence, the purpose of this study was to use progressively detailed categories as indicators to describe the multiformity of IPL, explicating latent pathogenesis and treatment protocols.
Materials and methods
Protocol
This systematic review complied with the PRISMA statement and its protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022378001).
Focus question
The specific research question was: “What histopathological characteristics are associated with IPL?”
Literature searching
The research was performed in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration recommendations, and it included all published articles related to IPL from 1992 to 2021 on PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Keywords "retrograde peri-implantitis", "apical peri-implantitis", "implant periapical lesion" were searched in the title/abstract, and citation retrieval was performed for critical articles.
Eligibility criteria
Participants had a history of dental implants. The affected implants needed to be diagnosed as IPL by radiography and histopathology. The results involved radiography, histopathology, and implant outcome. Reviews, conference papers, protocols, non-English publications, and lack of sufficient evidence were excluded.
Studies selection and data extraction
The studies were independently assessed by two reviewers (Wang and Dai) and disagreements were resolved through discussion. Meanwhile, two reviewers independently extracted the information from the literature according to a preset table, which was then further checked by a third reviewer (ZRM). Domains of extraction included author, number of patients, implant site, follow-up, clinical description, histopathology (extracted verbatim), category, interventions, and outcomes.
Quality assessment
All case series reports were assessed via modified The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Assessment Checklist (https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.) and the processes were conducted independently by two reviewers (WJ and DZM). The study was assessed as low risk if it provided more than 75% of the required parameters; And parameters of 50% to 75% were assessed as medium risk; Parameter being less than 50% was classified as high risk.
Result
Searching results
509 literatures were preliminarily searched, and 28 literatures were finally evaluated after eliminating the reduplicative and substandard literatures. (Fig 1).
Characteristics of the included articles
Table 2 showed the information of IPL extracted after retrieval. There were 27 case reports [6–8, 12–34] and 1 retrospective study [35], all of which were conducted in humans. The following signs and symptoms were frequently mentioned in the case reports: swelling, abscess, localized pain, and fistula. Radiographically, all cases clearly showed radiography in the implant tip, with osseointegration remaining in the implant crown.
Histopathological assessment
Diverse pathogenesis and progression stages of IPL determine the different histopathological manifestations. In a retrospective study [35], histopathology of 37 implants revealed the intrastromal inflammatory cell infiltration, predominantly lymphocytes and plasma cells, of which 26 implants had indications of infection.
In case reports, infected granulomatous tissue was associated with generalized chronic and acute cells as well as the presence of neutrophils [13, 14, 20]. A great number of inflammatory cells, lymphocyte infiltration and necrotic tissue were observed in abscess [16, 24]. The squamous epithelium may be explored in cystic lesions, partly infiltrated by dense lymphocytes and macrophages, and partly absent from the intraepithelial lining [8, 12, 21, 23]. A case of foreign body was observed by histopathological examination with well-defined starching granules from rubber gloves [22]. Two IPL cases had undesirable bone healing and both, possessing abnormal bone formation and poor trabecular structure, were aseptic [13, 26].
Justification for proposed classification
As Table 1 shows, there is still no consensus on the classification of IPL. The included reports (70 patients/76 implants) were preliminarily distributed in Penarrocha-Diago et al. ’s classification [5]: 31 implants were inactive [8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36], and 46 implants were active, with acute non-suppurated(1) [13], acute suppurated (10) [6, 7, 14, 16, 19, 25, 28, 31, 32], subacute/suppurated-fistulized(7) [15, 22–24, 33, 34], unclear stage(26) [35]. It should be noted that histopathological findings in some cases did not match Penarrocha-Diago et al.’s classification to some extent. For example, Nedir et al.’s [22] case presented clinical characteristics similar to the subacute/suppurated-fistulized phase, however, the detected foreign body was considered to be the culprit rather than residual infection; Cases presenting only localized pain and radiography were defined as acute suppurating [6, 7, 31], whereas histopathological evidence showed implant periapical cyst rather than inflammation; Asymptomatic cases were directly classified as inactive lesions according to the previous criteria, which led to the inclusion of cystic entity. However, the interpretation of the inactive item did not comprise cyst.
In view of the above, a more comprehensive and detailed classification was presented in Table 2 and Fig 2. Included case reports were assigned in 5 domains: acute non-suppurated (1/37), chronic granulomatous stage (5/37), acute suppurated (2/37), chronic suppurated-fistulized (6/37), implant periapical cyst (21/37), foreign body reaction (1/37), poor bone healing (2/37). The retrospective study was not involved in the above statistics due to the lack of individual case content.
A: Normal implant periapical status; B: Acute non-suppurative stage (no radiological changes); C: Chronic granulomatous stage; D: Acute suppurative stage (pus formation); E: Chronic suppurative fistula (two-drainage pathways); F: Implant periapical cyst. G: Foreign body reaction (radiologically visible or invisible); H: Poor bone healing.
Class I. Implant periapical inflammation
- Acute non-suppurated (Fig 2B) [5]:
- Symptoms or signs: Acute, continuous, moderate to severe and localized pain; Not aggravating the pain with percussion; Perhaps painful and inflamed periapical mucosa;
- Histopathology: Acute inflammatory infiltrate, neutrophil infiltration
- Radiography: No radiolucency
- Chronic granuloma (Fig 2C):
- Symptoms or signs: No symptoms or light spontaneous pain; Perhaps swelled and reddish mucosa
- Histopathology: Inflammatory granulation tissue; Increased inflammatory cells and capillaries
- Radiography: Radiolucency
Class II. Implant periapical abscess
- Acute suppurated (Fig 2D) [5]:
- Symptoms or signs: Same as the non-suppurated case
- Histopathology: Polymorphonuclear leukocytes infiltrate and necrotic tissue
- Radiography: Radiolucency without penetrating the bone-plate
- Chronic suppurated-fistulized (Fig 2E) [5]:
- Symptoms or signs: Dull pain; Possible sinus tract around the Mucosa; A tympanic sound produced by percussion
- Histopathology: Fibrous connective tissue hyperplasia or infiltration of lymphocytes
- Radiography: Radiolucency with possible incomplete bone-plate
Class III. Implant periapical cyst (Fig 2F):
- Symptoms or signs: No symptoms and possible mucosa swelling
- Histopathology: Epithelial lining and possible cholesterol crystallization
- Radiography: Radiolucency
Class IV. Foreign body reaction (Fig 2G):
- Symptoms or signs: Inflammatory response or no symptoms
- Histopathology: Foreign bodies
- Radiography: Radiolucency or not
Class V. Poor bone healing (Fig 2H):
- Symptoms or signs: No symptoms
- Histopathology: Aseptic necrosis or fibrous connective tissue
- Radiograph: Radiolucency
Treatment protocols and results
Variability of the properties did not allow the management of individual patients to be discerned, so the treatment protocols in case reports were rearranged according to the new classification format.
- Acute non-suppurated (1 case): by the time of intervention, the acute non-suppurative stage had progressed to the chronic granulomatous stage [13].
- Acute suppurated (2 cases): One case, failing to respond to antibiotics, was covered with collagen membrane after surgical debridement [25]. Tetracycline was disinfected after direct surgical debridement in another case [32]. Both implants ultimately failed to survive.
- Chronic granuloma (5 cases): Two cases did not respond to antibiotics and were treated with implant apicoectomy and bone graft materials [19, 33]. One case performed RCT on the adjacent teeth with the same surgical protocol as the above [13]. In the other two cases, one failed while the other one survived after implant debridement [20, 28].
- Chronic suppurated-fistulized (6 cases): Antibiotic treatment failed in both cases [24, 33], followed by the implant failure after surgical debridement in one case and the success with apicoectomy plus GBR in the other. One case was successfully treated with surgical debridement plus GBR and adjacent RCT [14]. The implant was not survived after surgical debridement in two cases [16], but one was reserved by implant apicoectomy [15].
- Implant periapical cyst (21 cases): Only the cysts were removed by surgical debridement of the 9 implants [8, 17, 23, 27, 29, 31, 36], resulting in 6 falling and 3 remaining. Apicoectomy was performed in two implants [6, 23] and marsupialization was performed in one [34]. At the end, all implants survived.
- Poor bone healing (2 cases): After debridement of the two implants, one implant healed well [13] while the other implant was removed because of the existing lesion [26].
In the retrospective study [35], 39 IPL were undergoing with apicoectomy. Ultimately, only 1 implant failed.
Possibility of bias
Nine papers were assessed as low possibility of bias, 13 as moderate possibility of bias, and 6 as high possibility of bias (Table 3).
Discussion
Replacing the space among the missing teeth with implants is the best alternative to restore the patient’s oral morphology and function. However, complex and varied peri-implant diseases generally affect the long-term outcomes of the implant [37]. Early studies mentioned the loss of periapical supporting bone in implants, which was presumed to be related to microbial residue, bone overheating and premature loading [38, 39]. At present, IPL is considered to possess the multifactorial induction, with adjacent endodontic lesion having the highest priority [40]. Given the complexity and uncertainty of the pathogenesis, the incomplete recognition of IPL has led to the limitations of previous classification systems.
Reiser and Nevins [4] primarily divided IPL into inactive and active forms, which were also employed by Sarmast et al. [9] and Penarrocha-Diago et al [5]. Differently, the former increased the category of implant misplacement and residual infection from etiological consideration. The latter refined the characteristics of inflammatory stage from the stage of lesion progression. Regrettably, the above classifications failed to assess the histopathology of IPL, resulting in the neglection of cyst entities. Sussman et al. [41] believed that the categories "Implant to Tooth" and "Tooth to Implant" explained the potential mutual relationship between adjacent teeth and IPL. This inference was based on radiography, but it was undeniable that IPL sometimes occurred independently from the adjacent teeth. Besides, Kadkhodazadeh and Amid [11] proposed a complex classification of peri-implant disease focusing on the relationship between adjacent teeth and implant, but the interpretation of IPL was limited. Recently, Shah et al. [10] proposed a quantitative classification employing radiology to measure the affected proportion of implant. The failure to consider the pathogenesis of IPL made this classification in the need of combing with other classifications.
In this context, the proposed classification provided a comprehensive description of IPL and offered the potential to increase our knowledge and understanding of management. In Table 2, the present possible entity of IPL rather than ordinary inflammatory property was indicated, especially the histopathological evidence of cyst.
For this classification, each category has been subjected to rigorous literature screening and scholars’ evaluation while referring to Penarrocha-Diago’s proposals [5]. Within the category "implant periapical inflammation", acute non-suppurative phases were less common in the included studies. The localized pain around the implant tip aroused the attention of the implantologists, but the apical radiography could not be observed. Chan et al. [13] reported that the acute suppurative stage progressed to the chronic granuloma stage, which could be detected by apical radiograph a few days after prophylactic antibiotic administration. Apart from radiological differences, the pain response of the former was usually more severe than that of the latter, which showed granulation tissue on biopsy.
The contents of implant periapical abscess described in Penarrocha-Diago’s review [5] were confirmed by the histopathology of the included studies. The limited number of cases was due to the exclusion of previous cases focusing on radiology and ignoring histopathology. As a matter of fact, cases at this stage were often described. Pain is particularly intense during this acute suppurative stage. Without early intervention, infection can spread along the implant-bone interface, ultimately leading to the implant failure. It can also spread the facial bone-plate and form mucosal fistulas penetrated with oral cavity, allowing oral microbial infiltration. The similarity of Penarrocha-Diago’s results provides a degree of assurance with which possible histopathology was integrated.
The term "implant periapical cyst" was first mentioned and reviewed in this classification. Multiple studies reported that implant placement induced cyst formation in implant tip [6, 8, 30, 31]. As described in the case reports, the stimulation of infection or implantation might stimulate epithelial proliferation to form the cyst wall, which was composed of squamous epithelium and could be observed in tissue sections with or without inflammatory cell infiltration, depending on the origin of cyst. In general, patients with implant periapical cysts feel normal in the early stage, but the compression of enlarged cyst can cause various symptoms, such as mucosal swelling, local pain, fistula, and implant mobility. Although cysts (21/35) are the most frequently documented in Table 2, the prevalence is underestimated because some professionals may surgically remove implant periapical tissue without histopathological examination. As it can be difficult to clinically differentiate between implant periapical cyst and other IPL, the definitive diagnosis based on the histopathology study is significant.
Foreign body reaction refers to the inflammatory response caused by the presence of foreign materials at the implant tip that affects bone healing [42]. Foreign bodies, such as glove powder and metal particles from instruments, are usually brought in during the implantation. Nedir et al. [22] examined starch particles in rubber gloves in IPL that caused localized chronic granuloma or delayed hypersensitivity. Radiologically, foreign body reaction did not always present radiolucency, posing a conundrum to distinguish it from initial inflammation.
The incorporation of scar tissue, overpreparation of implant bed, and bone compression for inclusion [40] into the proposed term “poor bone healing” were considered. They are often clinically asymptomatic and radiologically confused with implant periapical cyst, therefore, aseptic, non-cystic histopathological diagnosis is critical. Hence, poor bone healing is not a disease or pathological condition in the new classification. The term is simply defined as "inactive" based on the clinically asymptomatic features and stable lesion ranges seem to require greater caution.
Cases in the literature reported that the treatment of IPL, as an empirical approach rather than the types of IPL (single or multiple), was treated by a particular technique. Treatment decision tree (Fig 3) was attempted to be reported by organizing the same category of information in the IPL. Poor bone healing with radio-only transmission was shown in Fig 2H, which has been suggested by several studies to monitor lesions without medical intervention [43]. Once the radiography increases or the patient experiences pain, surgery is required [43]. In the acute non-suppurative phase shown in Fig 2B, experimental antibiotics seem to be a reasonable conservative option to observe the progression of disease [44], although enrolled cases suggest a great possibility of failure. Reviewing the unincluded literature, it was found that systemic antibiotics for IPL included clindamycin, metronidazole, amoxicillin, cephalexin, penicillin, and cephalosporin [25, 26, 45–48]. Among them, Waasdorp et al [49] and Chang et al [50] respectively used amoxicillin (500mg/d, 10d), amoxicillin (250mg/d, 3d) and acetaminophen(500mg/d, 3d), achieving a surprising success without additional management. At present, there is no consensus on the dose and type of antibiotics for IPL, and its criteria should consider etiology, symptom and open / closed lesions [50].
Symptoms (localized pain and puffiness) and signs (mucosal swelling and fistulas) may occur at various intensifications in different stages of infection. Foreign body reaction is shown in Fig 2G. Implant periapical radiography further confirms the need for surgical intervention [44]. Thorough debridement is identified as the centroid for the prognosis of implant, especially the plaque biofilm on the rough surface of implant [43]. Implant apicoectomy is considered to be prudent because the elevated crown/implant ratio increases the risk of unexpected mechanical complications, although it is currently considered as the most thorough and successful procedure in clinical practice (44/45). Conservative implant surface preparation has been reported, including mechanical curettage [13, 25], chemical agents [32], air-abrasive and laser decontamination [51], whereas limited case results suggest that there is no standardized prospective protocol. In this context, a phased debridement protocol was recognized, in which conservative non-resectable surgery was given priority and apicectomy was considered after ineffectiveness [40, 43]. Besides, the healing of soft tissue involved in IPL are also of concern, especially in cases of mucosa fistula.
To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive consideration of implant periapical cyst that reduces the diagnostic complexity of different types of cysts and improves the chances of clinical use. The protocols for removing cyst are not exactly the same as the infection, with the primary privilege concentrating on the treatment of giant implant periapical cyst. While surgical excision was only discussed in the previous study, Troiano et al. [34] provided a potential solution for the successful treatment of a large implant periapical cyst with marsupialization. Biopsy during surgery is considered as a necessary element to identify recurrent cystic or malignant tumors [8, 17]. Obviously, this effectively reduces the risk of complications such as implant mobility and fracture caused by direct debridement, thus resulting in large scale of bone defects.
In conclusion, this report, presenting a general classification framework that can highlight the complexity of IPL, is suitable for integrating into the clinical practice. We have done preliminary verification with limited evidence. However, additional cohort studies containing histopathological evidence are necessary to complement and refine the applicability and comprehensiveness of the new classification. This classification is timely for IPL although the ointment is the inability to verify the optimal treatment protocols.
Acknowledgments
Authors are thankful for Dr. Wang and Dr. Dai to help with the literature screening and quality assessment.
References
- 1. Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontology 2000. 2017;73(1):7–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/prd.12185
- 2. McAllister BS, Masters D, Meffert RM. Treatment of implants demonstrating periapical radiolucencies. Practical periodontics and aesthetic dentistry: PPAD. 1992;4(9):37–41 pmid:1308162
- 3. Schwarz F, Derks J, Monje A, Wang HL. Peri-implantitis. Journal of clinical periodontology. 2018;45 Suppl 20:S246–s66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12954
- 4. Reiser GM, Nevins M. The implant periapical lesion: etiology, prevention, and treatment. Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, NJ: 1995). 1995;16(8):768, 70, 72 passim pmid:8620395
- 5. Peñarrocha Diago M, Boronat López A, Lamas Pelayo J. Update in dental implant periapical surgery. Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal. 2006;11(5):E429–32 pmid:16878068
- 6. Takeshita K, Funaki K, Jimbo R, Takahashi T. Nasopalatine duct cyst developed in association with dental implant treatment: A case report and histopathological observation. Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology: JOMFP. 2013;17(2):319. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-029x.119761 pmid:24250105
- 7. Pistilli R, Canullo L, Menini M, Pistilli V, Rossi-Fedele G, Pesce P. Retrograde peri-implantitis associated with residual cysts: 3 Case reports. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 2020;151(12):956–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2020.07.016 pmid:33239159
- 8. Kochaji N. Inflammatory odontogenic cyst on an osseointegrated implant: A peri-implant cyst? New entity proposed. Dental & Medical Problems. 2017;54(3):303–6.
- 9. Sarmast ND, Wang HH, Soldatos NK, Angelov N, Dorn S, Yukna R, et al. A Novel Treatment Decision Tree and Literature Review of Retrograde Peri-Implantitis. Journal of periodontology. 2016;87(12):1458–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.160219 pmid:27498713
- 10. Shah R, Thomas R, Kumar AB, Mehta DS. A Radiographic Classification for Retrograde Peri-implantitis. The journal of contemporary dental practice. 2016;17(4):313–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1847 pmid:27340166
- 11. Kadkhodazadeh M, Amid R. A New Classification for the Relationship between Periodontal, Periapical, and Peri-implant Complications. Iranian endodontic journal. 2013;8(3):103–8. pmid:23922570
- 12. Casado PL, Donner M, Pascarelli B, Derocy C, Duarte ME, Barboza EP. Immediate dental implant failure associated with nasopalatine duct cyst. Implant dentistry. 2008;17(2):169–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181776c52 pmid:18545048
- 13. Chan HL, Wang HL, Bashutski JD, Edwards PC, Fu JH, Oh TJ. Retrograde peri-implantitis: a case report introducing an approach to its management. Journal of periodontology. 2011;82(7):1080–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100585 pmid:21138359
- 14. Chaffee NR, Lowden K, Tiffee JC, Cooper LF. Periapical abscess formation and resolution adjacent to dental implants: a clinical report. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2001;85(2):109–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.113353 pmid:11208196
- 15. Dahlin C, Nikfarid H, Alsén B, Kashani H. Apical peri-implantitis: possible predisposing factors, case reports, and surgical treatment suggestions. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2009;11(3):222–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00108.x pmid:18783425
- 16. Favia G, Piattelli A, Sportelli P, Capodiferro S, Iezzi G. Osteonecrosis of the posterior mandible after implant insertion: a clinical and histological case report. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2011;13(1):58–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00181.x pmid:19681933
- 17. Galzignato PF, Sivolella S, Cavallin G, Ferronato G. Dental implant failure associated with a residual maxillary cyst. British dental journal. 2010;208(4):153–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.156 pmid:20186195
- 18. Kim JJ, Freire M, Yoon JH, Kim HK. Postoperative maxillary cyst after maxillary sinus augmentation. The Journal of craniofacial surgery. 2013;24(5):e521–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182a238a4 pmid:24036833
- 19. Manfro R, Garcia GF, Bortoluzzi MC, Fabris V, Bacchi A, Elias CN. Apicoectomy and Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis of an Implant Infected by Apical (Retrograde) Peri-implantitis: A Case Letter. The Journal of oral implantology. 2018;44(4):287–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00162 pmid:29608404
- 20. McCracken MS, Chavali RV, Al-Naief NS, Eleazer PD. A residual granuloma in association with a dental implant. Implant dentistry. 2012;21(2):87–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31824c2b52 pmid:22382756
- 21. McCrea SJ. Nasopalatine duct cyst, a delayed complication to successful dental implant placement: diagnosis and surgical management. The Journal of oral implantology. 2014;40(2):189–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-12-00011 pmid:24779952
- 22. Nedir R, Bischof M, Pujol O, Houriet R, Samson J, Lombardi T. Starch-induced implant periapical lesion: a case report. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2007;22(6):1001–6. pmid:18271383
- 23. Park WB, Kim YJ, Han JY, Kang P. Successful Management of Dental Implants in Postoperative Maxillary Cyst: A Case Report With a 13-Year Follow-Up. The Journal of oral implantology. 2020;46(2):133–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00191 pmid:31910067
- 24. Piattelli A, Scarano A, Balleri P, Favero GA. Clinical and histologic evaluation of an active "implant periapical lesion": a case report. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 1998;13(5):713–6 pmid:9796159
- 25. Piattelli A, Scarano A, Piattelli M. Abscess formation around the apex of a maxillary root form implant: clinical and microscopical aspects. A case report. Journal of periodontology. 1995;66(10):899–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.1995.66.10.899 pmid:8537875
- 26. Piattelli A, Scarano A, Piattelli M, Podda G. Implant periapical lesions: clinical, histologic, and histochemical aspects. A case report. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. 1998;18(2):181–7 pmid:9663096
- 27. Qu C, Meng H, Han J. Implant periapical lesion—a review and a case report with histological evaluation. Clinical oral implants research. 2014;25(9):1099–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12232 pmid:23845060
- 28. Scarano A, Di Domizio P, Petrone G, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Implant periapical lesion: a clinical and histologic case report. The Journal of oral implantology. 2000;26(2):109–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2000)026<0109:Iplaca>2.3.Co;2 pmid:11831326
- 29. Silva GC, Oliveira DR, Vieira TC, Magalhães CS, Moreira AN. Unusual presentation of active implant periapical lesions: a report of two cases. Journal of oral science. 2010;52(3):491–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.52.491 pmid:20881345
- 30. Sivolella S, Valente M, Gasparini E, Stellini E. Nasopalatine duct cyst as a complication of dental implant placement: a case report. Minerva stomatologica. 2013;62(6):235–9 pmid:23828259
- 31. Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Kawai H, Takebe Y, Shibata A, Takahashi Y, et al. Nasopalatine duct cyst associated with dental implant treatment: A case report. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Cases. 2015;1(3):38–41.
- 32. Sun CX, Henkin JM, Ririe C, Javadi E. Implant failure associated with actinomycosis in a medically compromised patient. The Journal of oral implantology. 2013;39(2):206–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-11-00028 pmid:21767210
- 33. Thompson-Sloan TN, Kolhatkar S, Bhola M. Management of Retrograde Peri-Implantitis by Apical Resection and Guided Bone Regeneration in Adjacent Maxillary Implants. Clinical Advances in Periodontics. 2012;2(4):250–5. https://doi.org/10.1902/cap.2012.110106
- 34. Troiano A, Lo Giudice G, De Luca R, Lo Giudice F, D’Amato S, Tartaro G, et al. Salvage of Dental Implant Located in Mandibular Odontogenic Cyst. A Conservative Surgical Treatment Proposal. Dentistry journal. 2020;8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj8020049 pmid:32403226
- 35. Balshi SF, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ. A retrospective evaluation of a treatment protocol for dental implant periapical lesions: long-term results of 39 implant apicoectomies. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2007;22(2):267–72 pmid:17465352
- 36. Tseng CC, Chen YH, Pang IC, Weber HP. Peri-implant pathology caused by periapical lesion of an adjacent natural tooth: a case report. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2005;20(4):632–5 pmid:16161749
- 37. Tonetti MS, Chapple IL, Jepsen S, Sanz M. Primary and secondary prevention of periodontal and peri-implant diseases: Introduction to, and objectives of the 11th European Workshop on Periodontology consensus conference. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42 Suppl 16:S1–4. pmid:25683242
- 38. Bretz WA, Matuck AN, de Oliveira G, Moretti AJ, Bretz WA. Treatment of retrograde peri-implantitis: clinical report. Implant Dent. 1997;6(4):287–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199700640-00004 pmid:9477777
- 39. Sussman HI. Implant pathology associated with loss of periapical seal of adjacent tooth: clinical report. Implant Dent. 1997;6(1):33–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199700610-00007 pmid:9206403
- 40. Temmerman A, Lefever D, Teughels W, Balshi TJ, Balshi SF, Quirynen M. Etiology and treatment of periapical lesions around dental implants. Periodontology 2000. 2014;66(1):247–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/prd.12055 pmid:25123772
- 41. Sussman HI. Periapical implant pathology. The Journal of oral implantology. 1998;24(3):133–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(1998)024<0133:Pip>2.3.Co;2 pmid:9893519
- 42. Albrektsson T, Dahlin C, Jemt T, Sennerby L, Turri A, Wennerberg A. Is marginal bone loss around oral implants the result of a provoked foreign body reaction? Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2014;16(2):155–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12142 pmid:24004092
- 43. Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Blaya-Tárraga JA. State of the art and clinical recommendations in periapical implant lesions. 9th Mozo-Grau Ticare Conference in Quintanilla, Spain. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. 2017;9(3):e471–e3. http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.53600 pmid:28298994
- 44. Peñarrocha-Diago M, Maestre-Ferrín L, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Oltra D. Implant periapical lesion: diagnosis and treatment. Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal. 2012;17(6):e1023–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.17996 pmid:22926472
- 45. Brisman DL, Brisman AS, Moses MS. Implant failures associated with asymptomatic endodontically treated teeth. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 2001;132(2):191–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0154 pmid:11217592
- 46. Park SH, Sorensen WP, Wang HL. Management and prevention of retrograde peri-implant infection from retained root tips: two case reports. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. 2004;24(5):422–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/prd.00.0604 pmid:15506023
- 47. Quirynen M, Gijbels F, Jacobs R. An infected jawbone site compromising successful osseointegration. Periodontology 2000. 2003;33:129–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0906-6713.2002.03311.x pmid:12950847
- 48. Rokadiya S, Malden NJ. An implant periapical lesion leading to acute osteomyelitis with isolation of Staphylococcus aureus. British dental journal. 2008;205(9):489–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.935 pmid:18997702
- 49. Waasdorp J, Reynolds M. Nonsurgical treatment of retrograde peri-implantitis: a case report. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2010;25(4):831–3 pmid:20657882
- 50. Chang LC, Hsu CS, Lee YL. Successful medical treatment of an implant periapical lesion: a case report. Chang Gung medical journal. 2011;34(1):109–14 pmid:21392481
- 51. Soldatos N, Romanos GE, Michaiel M, Sajadi A, Angelov N, Weltman R. Management of Retrograde Peri-Implantitis Using an Air-Abrasive Device, Er, Cr: YSGG Laser, and Guided Bone Regeneration. Case reports in dentistry. 2018;2018:7283240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/7283240 pmid:29850281