OBJECTIVE: To report the clinical presentation and oncologic outcomes of a series of patients who presented with an abdominal or pelvic mass and were diagnosed with a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). METHODS: Data were obtained on all patients who presented with an abdominal or pelvic mass between September 2007 and June 2010 and who were ultimately diagnosed with a GIST. The patients' medical records were reviewed. A literature review was also conducted. RESULTS: Six patients were identified who met the inclusion criteria. All six patients had a tumor in the intestinal tract arising from the small bowel. The mean tumor size was 12 cm (range, 6 to 22 cm). A complete resection was achieved in five of the six patients. There were no intraoperative complications; one patient had a postoperative complication. Two patients were treated with imatinib after surgery. The mean follow-up time was 32 months (range, 0.3 to 40 months). At the last follow-up, five of the six patients were without any evidence of disease. One patient died of an unrelated hepatic encephalopathy. The incidence in our institution is 3%. CONCLUSION: GISTs are uncommon; however, they should be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with an abdominal or pelvic mass.
Benzamides ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors ; Hepatic Encephalopathy ; Humans ; Imatinib Mesylate ; Incidence ; Incidental Findings ; Medical Records ; Ovarian Neoplasms ; Piperazines ; Postoperative Complications ; Pyrimidines

Purpose: Peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI) are multicausal conditions with several risk factors contributing to their pathogenesis. In this study, we retrospectively investigated risk variables potentially associated with these peri-implant diseases (PIDs) over a follow-up period of 1 to 18 years. Methods: The study sample consisted of 379 implants placed in 155 patients. Single-visit clinical and radiographic evaluations were employed to determine the presence or absence of PIDs. Parameters related to the patient, site, surgery, implant, and prosthetic restoration were documented. The relationships between risk variables and the occurrence of PIDs were individually examined and adjusted for confounders using multivariate binary logistic regression models. Results: The prevalence rates of PIM and PI were 28.4% and 36.8% at the patient level and 33.5% and 24.5% at the implant level, respectively. Poor oral hygiene, active gingivitis/ periodontitis, preoperative alveolar ridge deficiency, early or delayed implant placement, implant length of 11.0 mm or less, and poor restoration quality were strong and independent risk indicators for both PIDs. Furthermore, a follow-up period of more than 5 years and a loading time of more than 4 years were important indicators for PI. Simultaneously, age and smoking status acted as modifiers of the effect of mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) widths of restoration on PI. Conclusions In this study population, oral hygiene, periodontal status, preoperative alveolar ridge status, implant placement protocol, implant length, and the quality of coronal restoration appear to be robust risk indicators for both PIM and PI. Additionally, the length of follow-up and functional loading time are robust indicators of PI. Furthermore, the potential modifying relationships of age and smoking status with the MD and BL widths of restoration may be crucial for the development of PI.

Purpose: Peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI) are multicausal conditions with several risk factors contributing to their pathogenesis. In this study, we retrospectively investigated risk variables potentially associated with these peri-implant diseases (PIDs) over a follow-up period of 1 to 18 years. Methods: The study sample consisted of 379 implants placed in 155 patients. Single-visit clinical and radiographic evaluations were employed to determine the presence or absence of PIDs. Parameters related to the patient, site, surgery, implant, and prosthetic restoration were documented. The relationships between risk variables and the occurrence of PIDs were individually examined and adjusted for confounders using multivariate binary logistic regression models. Results: The prevalence rates of PIM and PI were 28.4% and 36.8% at the patient level and 33.5% and 24.5% at the implant level, respectively. Poor oral hygiene, active gingivitis/ periodontitis, preoperative alveolar ridge deficiency, early or delayed implant placement, implant length of 11.0 mm or less, and poor restoration quality were strong and independent risk indicators for both PIDs. Furthermore, a follow-up period of more than 5 years and a loading time of more than 4 years were important indicators for PI. Simultaneously, age and smoking status acted as modifiers of the effect of mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) widths of restoration on PI. Conclusions In this study population, oral hygiene, periodontal status, preoperative alveolar ridge status, implant placement protocol, implant length, and the quality of coronal restoration appear to be robust risk indicators for both PIM and PI. Additionally, the length of follow-up and functional loading time are robust indicators of PI. Furthermore, the potential modifying relationships of age and smoking status with the MD and BL widths of restoration may be crucial for the development of PI.

Purpose: Peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI) are multicausal conditions with several risk factors contributing to their pathogenesis. In this study, we retrospectively investigated risk variables potentially associated with these peri-implant diseases (PIDs) over a follow-up period of 1 to 18 years. Methods: The study sample consisted of 379 implants placed in 155 patients. Single-visit clinical and radiographic evaluations were employed to determine the presence or absence of PIDs. Parameters related to the patient, site, surgery, implant, and prosthetic restoration were documented. The relationships between risk variables and the occurrence of PIDs were individually examined and adjusted for confounders using multivariate binary logistic regression models. Results: The prevalence rates of PIM and PI were 28.4% and 36.8% at the patient level and 33.5% and 24.5% at the implant level, respectively. Poor oral hygiene, active gingivitis/ periodontitis, preoperative alveolar ridge deficiency, early or delayed implant placement, implant length of 11.0 mm or less, and poor restoration quality were strong and independent risk indicators for both PIDs. Furthermore, a follow-up period of more than 5 years and a loading time of more than 4 years were important indicators for PI. Simultaneously, age and smoking status acted as modifiers of the effect of mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) widths of restoration on PI. Conclusions In this study population, oral hygiene, periodontal status, preoperative alveolar ridge status, implant placement protocol, implant length, and the quality of coronal restoration appear to be robust risk indicators for both PIM and PI. Additionally, the length of follow-up and functional loading time are robust indicators of PI. Furthermore, the potential modifying relationships of age and smoking status with the MD and BL widths of restoration may be crucial for the development of PI.