Search

Metastases around dental implants are extremely rare. They usually represent a secondary localization of a multiorgan metastatic neoplasm but also are, exceptionally, recognized as the first clinical manifestation of a still unknown cancer of whatever organ. Metastases usually manifest as rapidly growing lesions of hard and soft tissues and always represent a true diagnostic/therapeutic dilemma both for clinicians in choosing the more appropriate treatment and for pathologists in recognizing the primary tumor when still undiagnosed. We report 2 distinct cases of metastasis occurring around dental implants in the maxilla and mimicking peri-implantitis at the onset; more precisely, in one case, the lesion involved exclusively the alveolar bone, where an implant were previously inserted, while in the other case, a neoplasm caused bone destruction around the fixture with an impressive and rapid exophytic growth. In both cases, maxillary lesions were the first metastatic manifestation of an unknown adenocarcinoma of the lung.

Peripheral giant cell granuloma (PGCG) is a nonneoplastic lesion of the oral mucosa arising on the buccal or lingual attached gingiva or alveolar mucosa and the crest of the edentulous alveolar ridge and contains numerous giant cells. This case series describes 3 cases regarding the clinical and surgical management of PGCG associated with dental implants., Materials and Methods: This case series presents 3 patients, mean age 36 years, who showed a pedunculated painless lesion associated with dental implants that radiographically appeared as an osseous rarefaction corresponding the implants., Discussion: Histological examination provided the diagnosis of PGCG. The treatment approach consisted in a surgical complete resection of the lesion and implant removal. After 1-year-follow-up, all the investigated cases did not show signs of recurrence., Conclusion: A correct diagnosis and an appropriate surgical treatment of peri-implant giant cell granuloma are very important aspects for proper management of the lesion.

Background: Many authors have considered dental implants to be unrelated to increased risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Nevertheless, more recently, more cases of peri-implant MRONJ (PI-MRONJ) have been described, thus becoming a challenging health problem. Also, metastatic cancer deposits are not infrequently found at peri-implant sites and this may represent an additional complication for such treatments. We present the case of a breast cancer patient with PI-MRONJ, presenting a clinically and radiologically undetected metastasis within the necrotic bone, and highlight the necessity of an accurate histopathological analysis., Case Report: A 66-year-old female patient, who had received intravenous bisphosphonates for bone breast cancer metastases, came to our attention for a non-implant surgery-triggered PI-MRONJ. After surgical resection of the necrotic bone, conventional and immunohistochemical examinations were performed, which showed breast cancer deposits within the necrotic bone., Conclusions: Cancer patients with metastatic disease, who are undergoing bisphosphonate treatment, may develop unusual complications, including MRONJ, which is a site at risk for hosting additional metastatic deposits that may be clinically and radiologically overlooked. Such risk is increased by previous or concomitant implant procedures. Consequently, clinicians should be prudent when performing implant surgery in cancer patients with advanced-stage disease and consider the possible occurrence of peri-implant metastases while planning adequate treatments in such patients.

Objective: In the recent years, an increasing number of peri‐implant medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw (PI‐MRONJ) have been reported in literature, both in oncologic and osteoporotic patients. The aim of this study is to describe 19 cases of patients previously diagnosed as affected by peri‐implantitis, who were treated for PI‐MRONJ, with consideration on clinical and histopathological features. Materials and Methods: Patients included were affected by postmenopausal osteoporosis and were administered with different antiresorptive drugs. Due to the presence of clinical and radiological signs of peri‐implantitis not healed after non‐surgical periodontal treatment, they were referred to the Complex Operating Unit of Odontostomatology of the University of Bari. Then, after a drug holiday of at least 3 months and cycles of antibiotics, and after other cycles of periodontal treatment, patients underwent the surgical removal of implant fixtures and surrounding bone. Results: Although the previous diagnosis of peri‐implantitis, the histopathological analysis with both conventional and confocal laser scanner microscopy confirmed the diagnosis of peri‐implantitis‐like MRONJ. Conclusion: Peri‐implantitis not healed after conventional treatment in patients at risk on MRONJ occurrence should be considered as peri‐implantitis‐like PI‐MRONJ and treated as required in order to get complete healing of the pathological condition, thus avoiding delay in the diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most recently reported techniques for the rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla are increasingly less invasive, as they are generally oriented to avoid sinus floor elevation with lateral access. The authors describe a mini-invasive surgical technique for short spiral implant insertion for the prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla, which could be considered a combination of several previously described techniques based on the under-preparation of the implant site to improve fixture primary stability and crestal approach to the sinus floor elevation without heterologous bone graft. Eighty short spiral implants were inserted in the molar area of the maxilla in patients with 4.5–6 mm of alveolar bone, measured on pre-operative computed tomography. The surgical technique involved careful drilling for the preparation of implant sites at differentiated depths, allowing bone dislocation in the apical direction, traumatic crestal sinus membrane elevation, and insertion of an implant (with spiral morphology) longer than pre-operative measurements. Prostheses were all single crowns. In all cases, a spiral implant 2–4 mm longer than the residual bone was placed. Only two implants were lost due to peri-implantitis but subsequently replaced and followed-up. Bone loss values around the implants after three months (at the re-opening) ranged from 0 to 0.6 mm, (median value: 0.1 mm), while after two years, the same values ranged from 0.4 to 1.3 mm (median value: 0.7 mm). Clinical post-operative complications did not occur. After ten years, no implant has been lost. Overall, the described protocol seems to show good results in terms of predictability and patient compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]