Aim To describe a case of autotransplantation nine weeks after the extraction of a hopeless tooth with a large periradicular lesion, which enabled the healing of the recipient site. Summary A 19‐year‐old male in generally good health was referred for evaluation of tooth 46. Clinically, there were class III mobility and sensitivity to percussion and palpation. There was a mesio‐lingual swelling and a single narrow deep pocket of 15 mm at the disto‐lingual aspect. CBCT imaging revealed a radiolucent area over 15 mm in diameter that extended from the mesial aspect of the mesial root of tooth 47 to the distal aspect of tooth 45. The radiolucent area was in proximity to the inferior alveolar canal and penetrated the buccal and the lingual cortical plates. The tooth was diagnosed with previously treated tooth, acute apical abscess and vertical root fracture. Tooth 46 was extracted, and a delicate curettage and drainage were performed. Nine weeks afterwards, a second surgery was performed: extraction of the impacted immature third molar (tooth 48). Immediately after the extraction, the tooth was replanted in the healing socket of tooth 46, and sufficient initial stability achieved. At a 1‐year follow‐up, the tooth had normal mobility, no sensitivity to palpation and percussion, and responded to thermal pulp testing. The soft tissue was normal, probing depths up to 3‐mm, without swelling or sinus tract. Radiographically, periapical healing at the recipient site was observed. Compared to the post‐operative periapical radiography immediately after the procedure, there was no change in the distal root dimensions. In the mesial root, development of the root length and a closed apex was demonstrated.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives To evaluate the incidence of retrograde peri‐implantitis (RPI) generally and the incidence of RPI with an endodontic‐treated adjacent tooth and/or a periapical radiolucency. Method The retrospective case–control study included the follow‐up periapical images of single dental implants. Two calibrated graduate endodontic residents evaluated simultaneously the presence of RPI and the adjacent teeth status (a previous root canal treatment (RCT) and the periapical status). Results Six hundred and eleven dental implants were included in this study. Twenty‐three implants with RPI were detected (the incidence of RPI was 3.7%). Thirty‐one adjacent teeth to the implants with RPI were recognized. Out of them, seven teeth had a previous RCT and periapical radiolucency or no RCT and periapical radiolucency. The odds ratios for RPI in an implant with periapical radiolucency or with RCT at the adjacent tooth are 6.67 (95% CI 2.7–16.5), P < 0.05; and 0.11 (95% CI 0.007–1.9), P > 0.05 respectively. Conclusions Based on periapical radiographs, the RPI incidence was 3.7% in the present study. The incidence of RPI increased in cases with adjacent teeth that had periapical radiolucency. Previous RCT in teeth adjacent to implants without apical radiolucency is not correlated with RPI.