No abstract

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.

Background: Alveolar socket preservation is a topic of serious interest, and researchers have investigated this problem quite extensively. In terms of aesthetics, it is very important to avoid bone resorption if the clinician decides to insert the implant immediately after the extraction. Recently, a new approach utilizing a barrier external to the socket has been developed, which has advanced the evolution of this technique. Immediate implants have also created some difficulty when re-evaluated in long-term follow-up, especially when an aesthetic result is part of the goal of the procedure. Methods: The modified periosteal inhibition (MPI) technique, which has shown interesting outcomes, is evaluated in this paper on a large group of patients. In this case series, among 14 patients, 11 received immediate implants using the MPI technique and immediate provisionalization, and 3 received immediate implants using the MPI technique and customized healing abutment. All patients showed ridge preservation to different degrees, ranging from 0.02 to 1.17 mm, with an average gain of 0.51 mm. Results: all of the 14 patients maintained the original ridge shape, and 1 showed an increase in bucco-lingual size. Conclusions: This case series confirms the promising information reported in earlier studies on this technique. Larger samples will be necessary to confirm the predictability of this new approach.