Case Report

(1)

Case Report

Infected Facial Tissue Fillers Caused by Dental Infection

Antoine Berberi ,

¹

Bouchra Hjeij ,

²

Georges Aad ,

³

and Georges Aoun

³

1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Lebanese University, Lebanon

2Faculty of Dental Medicine, Lebanese University, Lebanon

3Department of Oral Medicine and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Lebanese University, Lebanon Correspondence should be addressed to Antoine Berberi; aberberi@ul.edu.lb

Received 24 September 2021; Accepted 29 October 2021; Published 22 November 2021 Academic Editor: Darko Macan

Copyright © 2021 Antoine Berberi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Injectable dermalfillers are widely used for facial rejuvenation; they help reshape the facial contours by treating volume loss due to aging changes. Facialfillers may become infected following a dental infection. In this report, we present a case of a 44-year-old female patient who presented with a swelling in her upper right buccal region following dental treatment of her second maxillary right premolar. After a thorough history, clinical, and radiological examinations, the diagnosis of infected dermal filler was made. The lesion was treated by association of two antibiotics (ciprofloxacin IM and clindamycin tablets 300 mg), and a complete healing was observed two months after the end of the dental treatments.

1. Introduction

Injectable dermal ﬁllers (IDFs) are widely used for facial rejuvenation; they help reshape the facial contours by treating the volume loss due to aging changes [1].

Restoring lost volume has been achieved using autolo- gous fat transfer and human collagen, as well as with nonhu- man product sources such as hyaluronic acid (HA), bovine or porcine collagen, and synthetic calcium hydroxylapatite or poly-L-lactic acid. The most common IDFs are the HA derivatives [2].

Usually, IDFs are classiﬁed based on their tissue survival durability, which can be divided into four types: (a) the short-term type (up to 6 months), (b) the long-term type (up to 24 months), (c) the semipermanent type that can remain from 2 to 5 years, and (d) the permanent type that can survive longer than 5 years [3, 4].

Although IDFs are usually considered safe, the risk of complications is present; these latter can result as early- or late-onset incidents, and they include granulomas, nodules, material migration, and chronic cellulitis [5–7]. For many authors, homogeneous semipermanent or permanentﬁllers

have been associated with many delayed cases of abscesses and granulomas [8–12].

Moreover, cases of infected facial IDFs originated from odontogenic infections with orofacial swelling have been described [1, 7]. These conditions occurring close to the IDFs should be distinguished from traditional facial cellulitis. Con- sequently, dental practitioners should be careful when pro- ceeding with any dental procedures in patients with a positive history of facial IDFs.

In this report, we present a case of an infected IDF occurring from an edema of dental origin.

2. Case Report

A 44-year-old healthy female patient was referred to our department complaining of a swelling in her upper right buccal region following a dental treatment of her second maxillary right premolar (Figure 1).

Clinical examination revealed a diﬀuse, ﬂuctuant, and tender swelling in her right cheek.

Intraoral radiographs showed radiolucency in relation to the apex of the upper right second premolar (#15) treated

Hindawi

Case Reports in Dentistry

Volume 2021, Article ID 8661995, 6 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8661995

(2)

endodontically (Figure 2(a)). The upperﬁrst premolar (#14) was not vital as the conﬁrmed vitality test.

Cone beamed computed tomography (CBCT) radiograph showed a radiolucent image related to the apical part of #15 with bone resorption discontinuity of the buccal and maxillary sinus cortical (Figure 2(b)).

MRI images with 1.5 T using routine T1- and T2- weighted spin-echo sequences revealed a subcutaneous high STIR signal fat stranding in both cheeks due to previous ﬁller injection with adjacent mild oedema denoting a reactive inﬂammatory one. No signs of osteomyelitis were noticed (Figure 3(a)).

Axial cuts displayed high signal intensity and an expansible lesion in the left cheek, with a buccal bone discontinuity. The same high signal was observed in the right cheek (Figure 3(b)).

The patient declared having received IDFs in her cheeks bilaterally about 6 years before. She was uninformed of the nature of the ﬁller material used. Treatment plan was pro- posed as surgical extraction of #15 with closure of the site to avoid an oro-antral communication, as well as a root canal treatment of #14 (Figure 4).

Antibiotics (two times per day of ciproﬂoxacin IM and clindamycin tablets 300 mg) were prescribed for 10 days.

Healing was observed 15 days after the end of all dental treatments (Figure 5) and completed two months after (Figure 6).

3. Discussion

IDFS materials provide an appropriate treatment for the enhancement and rejuvenation of the facial structures.

Figure 1: A diﬀuse, ﬂuctuant, and tender swelling in the right cheek.

(a) (b)

Figure 2: (a) Intraoral radiograph showed radiolucency in relation to the apex of the upper right second premolar. (b) CBCT radiograph showed a radiolucent image related to the apical part of #15 with bone resorption, discontinuity of the buccal and maxillary sinus cortical.

2 Case Reports in Dentistry

(3)

While hydrogels are biocompatible and nontoxic and easily penetrable by nutrients and waste products, making them exceptional growth media for bacteria [13]. Moreover, IDFs are considered safe; nevertheless, the chances of facing some complications still exist as these tissue-injected substances

are considered as a foreign body and present an initial chal- lenge to the host side eﬀects [14].

Sclafani and Fagien categorized adverse reactions to ﬁllers into three types: immediate-type (within 24 hours after injection), early-onset type (within 2 weeks), and

(a) (b)

Figure 3: (a) MRI images revealed a subcutaneous high STIR signal fat stranding in both cheeks due to previous ﬁller injection with adjacent mild oedema denoting a reactive inﬂammatory one. (b) Axial cuts displayed high signal intensity and an expansible lesion in the left cheek, with a buccal bone discontinuity.

Figure 4: Surgical extraction of tooth 15 with closure of the site to avoid oro-antral communication.

(4)

delayed-type (starting after 2 weeks to years after treatment) complications [8].

Delayed infection events have the same presentation as the early ones; they may present symptoms such as ery- thema, edema, bruising, itching, pain or tenderness, and nodules or abscesses [4, 15, 16]. Delayed onset of reactions could also be caused by a facial or oral invasive procedure done before the occurrence of the complications [4]. The exact factor causing complications after invasive procedures near filler depots is unknown, but the theory of bacterial contamination of thefiller material seems to play an essential role [2]; bacteria are the prime source of biofilms [17].

Biofilms are a structured aggregations of microorganisms encapsulated inside a self-developed polymeric matrix and permanently adherent to a living or inert surface [18]. The free-floating bacteria in tissues become adherent to the foreign body material and consequently develop biofilms.

Moreover, bacteria originating from oral conditions and/or procedures can activate the infective response of these bio- ﬁlms [17]. Once the bioﬁlm has been activated, it leads to acute purulent infection.

Marusza et al., in a case report of delayed infection of injected ﬁller in the cheek, found that remission was observed only after tooth extraction with antibiotic therapy, and they recommend that periodontal health status needed to be assessed prior to facial augmentation to reduce adverse reactions to theﬁller [19].

Rodriguez et al. noticed that Mycobacterium chelonae is one of the bacteria found in a case of cosmetic dermalﬁller facial infection [20]. For Alijotas-Reig et al. [21] and Chris- tensen et al. [22], Staphylococcus epidermidis and Cutibacter- ium acnes (formerly Propionibacterium acnes) are responsible of 98% of adverse reactions to dermal ﬁllers.

Others found that Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus species can be concerned in cases of infection linked toﬁller injections [23].

Active clinical infections canﬂare up weeks, months, and even years after initial surgery and can be controlled with antibiotic therapy; however, the underlying bioﬁlm can per- sist and recur [3, 4, 13].

Many antibiotic groups having the property of adhering to the matrix bioﬁlm such as macrolides, lincosamides, tetracy- clines, rifamycins, oxazolidinones,ﬂuoroquinolones, nitroimi- dazole, and sulphonamides have been recommended [24].

Ferneini et al. suggested the use of oxazolidinone and rifampin as part of combination therapy [16]. Grippaudo et al. recommended clindamycin and levoxacin in a case of ﬁller complications in the perioral region [25].

In our clinical case, the resulting bacteria from the apical infection of the second maxillary premolar moved through the missing buccal bone to the buccal soft tissue and rich injected material in the left cheek. The bacteriological iden- tiﬁcation of the causative pathogen was not done as the patient did not mention the history of dermalﬁller.

Figure 5: Healing after 15 days.

(5)

Our treatment plan was according to Ramzi et al. [7], Ferneini et al. [16], and Marusza et al. [19], and they suggested that dental treatment or tooth extraction improves healing in association with antibiotics.

The missing information from the patient about her der- malﬁller injection obliged us to perform MRI. The combination of antibiotics and dental treatment allowed us to eliminate the source of infections and to be able to control the spreading of the bacteria in the injected materials.

4. Conclusion

Facial IDFs may become infected following a dental infection. The mechanism could be attributed to the bacterial contamination from the mouth through the bloodstream after a dental procedure adjacent to thefiller injection that can be activated by the bacterial adherence to the material biofilms. It is essential to raise awareness about the impor- tance of completing dental treatment prior to filler place- ment, to avoid all risks of complications related to oral conditions. A detailed history of dermalfillers with complete information about the used materials should be known by the patient and declared to the practitioner.

Data Availability

All data are available in the manuscript.

Consent

The patient signed consent.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conﬂicts of interest.

References

[1] P. Schütz, H. H. Ibrahim, S. S. Hussain, T. S. Ali, K. el-Bas- suoni, and J. Thomas,“Infected facial tissue ﬁllers: case series and review of the literature,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 2403–2412, 2012.

[2] E. C. Davis and V. D. Callender,“Aesthetic dermatology for aging ethnic skin,” Dermatologic Surgery, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 901–917, 2011.

[3] G. D. Monheit and R. J. Rohrich,“The nature of long-term ﬁllers and the risk of complications,” Dermatologic Surgery, vol. 35, Supplement 2, pp. 1598–1604, 2009.

[4] J. A. Kadouch, D. J. Kadouch, S. Fortuin, L. van Rozelaar, R. B.

Karim, and R. Hoekzema, “Delayed-onset complications of facial soft tissue augmentation with permanent ﬁllers in 85 patients,” Dermatologic Surgery, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1474–

1485, 2013.

[5] T. S. Decates, E. C. Kruijt Spanjer, R. Saini, P. J. Velthuis, and F. M. Niessen,“Unilateral facial edema after ﬁller injection of Figure 6: Complete healing two months later.

(6)

the lower eyelid,” Dermatologic Therapy, vol. 33, no. 4, article e13539, 2020.

[6] K. Murakami, K. Yamamoto, T. Sugiura, and T. Kirita,“Buccal silicone granuloma caused by the dental infection,” Case Reports in Dentistry, vol. 2020, Article ID 8834475, 7 pages, 2020.

[7] A. A. Ramzi, M. Kassim, J. V. George, and A. Amin,“Dental procedures: is it a risk factor for injectable dermal ﬁllers?,”

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, vol. 14, Supplement 1, pp. 158–160, 2015.

[8] A. P. Sclafani and S. Fagien,“Treatment of injectable soft tissue ﬁller complications,” Dermatologic Surgery, vol. 35, Supple- ment 2, pp. 1672–1680, 2009.

[9] G. Ficarra, A. Mosqueda-Taylor, and R. Carlos,“Silicone granuloma of the facial tissues: a report of seven cases,” Oral Sur- gery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 65–73, 2002.

[10] T. Lombardi, J. Samson, F. Plantier, C. Husson, and R. Küﬀer,

“Orofacial granulomas after injection of cosmetic ﬁllers. Histo- pathologic and clinical study of 11 cases,” Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 115–120, 2004.

[11] R. Poveda, J. V. Bagán, J. Murillo, and Y. Jiménez,“Granulo- matous facial reaction to injected cosmeticﬁllers-a presentation of ﬁve cases,” Medicina Oral Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal, vol. 11, 2006.

[12] B. C. Jham, N. G. Nikitakis, M. A. Scheper, J. C. Papadimitriou, B. A. Levy, and H. Rivera,“Granulomatous foreign-body reaction involving oral and perioral tissues after injection of bio- materials: a series of 7 cases and review of the literature,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 280–285, 2009.

[13] L. H. Christensen,“Host tissue interaction, fate, and risks of degradable and nondegradable gelﬁllers,” Dermatologic Sur- gery, vol. 35, Supplement 2, pp. 1612–1619, 2009.

[14] E. Haneke,“Adverse eﬀects of ﬁllers and their histopathology,”

Facial Plastic Surgery, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 599–614, 2014.

[15] T. Pavicic and D. Funt,“Dermal ﬁllers in aesthetics: an overview of adverse events and treatment approaches,” Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, vol. 6, pp. 295–

316, 2013.

[16] E. M. Ferneini, D. Beauvais, and S. I. Aronin,“An overview of infections associated with soft tissue facialﬁllers: identiﬁca- tion, prevention, and treatment,” Journal of Oral and Maxillo- facial Surgery, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 160–166, 2017.

[17] M. Saththianathan, K. Johani, A. Taylor et al.,“The role of bacterial bioﬁlm in adverse soft-tissue ﬁller Reactions,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 613–621, 2017.

[18] K. Beer and R. Avelar,“Relationship between delayed reactions to dermalﬁllers and Bioﬁlms,” Dermatologic Surgery, vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 1175–1179, 2014.

[19] W. Marusza, R. Olszanski, J. Sierdzinski et al.,“Treatment of late bacterial infections resulting from soft-tissueﬁller injections,” Infection and Drug Resistance, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 469–480, 2019.

[20] J. M. Rodriguez, Y. L. Xie, K. L. Winthrop et al.,“Mycobacte- rium chelonae facial infections following injection of dermal ﬁller,” Aesthetic Surgery Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 265–269, 2013.

[21] J. Alijotas-Reig, F. Miró-Mur, I. Planells-Romeu, N. Garcia- Aranda, V. Garcia-Gimenez, and M. Vilardell-Tarrés, “Are bacterial growth and/or chemotaxis increased byﬁller injec-

tions? Implications for the pathogenesis and treatment of ﬁller-related granulomas,” Dermatology, vol. 221, no. 4, pp. 356–364, 2010.

[22] L. Christensen, V. Breiting, T. Bjarnsholt et al., “Bacterial infection as a likely cause of adverse reactions to polyacryl- amide hydrogelﬁllers in cosmetic surgery,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 1438–1444, 2013.

[23] C. DeLorenzi,“Complications of injectable ﬁllers, part I,” Aes- thetic Surgery Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 561–575, 2013.

[24] H. Wu, C. Moser, H. Z. Wang, N. Høiby, and Z. J. Song,“Strat- egies for combating bacterial bioﬁlm infections,” International Journal of Oral Science, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2015.

[25] F. R. Grippaudo, M. Di Girolamo, M. Mattei, E. Pucci, and C. Grippaudo, “Diagnosis and management of dermal ﬁller complications in the perioral region,” Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 246–252, 2014.