Peri‐implant epidermoid cyst: A case report and literature analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A peri-implant cystic lesion is a rare finding, and to date most investigators have considered that its pathogenesis is caused by trauma and infection related to dental implantation. However, the pathogenesis of these cysts remains unclear and is recognized to have multifactorial origins. CASE PRESENTATION: In February 2021, a 75-year-old male patient underwent implant restoration due to mobility of the left maxillary central incisor. The implant achieved good osseointegration and was successfully restored. However, in March 2023, the patient sought treatment due to mobility of the dental implant. Clinical examination showed that the implant had loosened in three directions (vertical, mesial-distal, and labial-lingual), and the peri-implant mucosa was slightly red and swollen. Radiographic examination (cone beam computed tomography) showed a large radiolucent area with clear boundaries involving the cervical and middle portions of the dental implant, and white bone lines were observed at the edge of the low-density shadow. Intraoperatively, we removed the patient's implant, performed a complete debridement, and conducted bone augmentation surgery in the area of bone defect. Postoperatively, the patient recovered well. The final histopathological result confirmed an epidermoid cyst. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant epidermoid cyst is a rare complication that affects the long-term outcome of implant therapy. This case serves as a warning to clinicians to avoid involving epithelial tissue in the implant site during implant surgery, in order to prevent the potential occurrence of a peri-implant epidermoid cyst, thereby creating better conditions for the patient's recovery and the long-term efficacy of the implant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".