Frequency of infraposition and missing contact points in implant‐supported restorations within natural dentitions over time: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to assess clinical evidence on adverse effects of osseointegrated implants placed among natural teeth of a residual dentition. Methods Seven databases were searched without restrictions up to January 2018 for clinical studies on implant infraposition (IIP) or proximal contact point (PCP) loss to the adjacent teeth. After duplicate selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, random‐effects meta‐analyses of odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were performed, followed by meta‐regression and sensitivity analyses. Results A total of 27 nonrandomized studies with 1,572 patients (mean age 42.2 years/51.2% female) followed up to 18.5 years after implant placement were included. The pooled %prevalence of IIP was 50.5% (nine studies; 95% CI = 26.3–74.5%), and the pooled IIP extent was 0.58 mm (six studies; 95% CI = 0.33–0.83 mm), while IIP > 1 mm was seen for 20.8% of placed implants (five studies; 95% CI = 8.3–37.1%), and male patients were less prone to IIP than female patients (three studies; OR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.10–0.88; p = 0.03). The pooled %prevalence of PCP loss was 46.3% (nine studies; 95% CI = 32.3–60.6%), with increase through observation time (two studies; OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.03–1.16; p = 0.004) and predilection for mesial PCPs (five studies; OR = 2.25; 95% CI = 1.06–4.77; p = 0.03). However, the quality of evidence was very low due to bias. Conclusions Patients and doctors need to be aware that long‐term adverse effects of dental implants among natural teeth can be observed in terms of IIP and PCP loss to the adjacent teeth.

Infraposition of anterior maxillary implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in adolescent and adult patients—A prospective follow‐up study up to 6 years

“…In a systematic review with meta‐analysis by Papageorgiou et al 2018 it was found that the pooled prevalence of implant infraposition was 50.5%, compared to 51% in the present study. However, they found a higher incidence of implant infraposition >1 mm, 20.8% of the placed implants compared to 3% in the present study …”

“…However, they found a higher incidence of implant infraposition >1 mm, 20.8% of the placed implants compared to 3% in the present study. 25 In the present study no correlation was found between vertical infraposition of the implant crown and patient's age, gender, jaw relation, overbite/overjet, occlusal contact, bone augmentation before or at implant installation or if orthodontic treatment had been made before or after implant installation. Interestingly, neither was there any difference of observed vertical infraposition of crowns found in patients where the restorations were placed before the age of 20 years compared with the older group of patients.…”

Time efficiency and quality of outcomes in a model‐free digital workflow using digital impression immediately after implant placement: A double‐blind self‐controlled clinical trial

“…Also, in the fully digital workflow the time between the acquisition of the IOS and the delivery of the crown was greater than in the hybrid workflow and could have influenced the quality of outcomes. A recent systematic review showed that the quality TA B L E 6 Clinical evaluation of crown quality before adjustments of outcomes may be negatively influenced over time (Papageorgiou, Eliades, & Hammerle, 2018).…”

Etiology and classification of food impaction around implants and implant‐retained prosthesis

“…The incidence of food impaction around immediately loaded implants is therefore found of less as compared to the conventional two staged implant treatment . Additionally, it is crucial to extract the tooth as atraumatically as possible to preserve the bony cortical plates and maintain the height of the existing the papilla …”

“…33 Additionally, it is crucial to extract the tooth as atraumatically as possible to preserve the bony cortical plates and maintain the height of the existing the papilla. [34][35][36][37][38][39] Therefore in order to prevent the onset of food impaction around implants, clinicians should recall and monitor patients every 3 to If an open proximal contact with no incidence of food impaction is observed, no treatment is indicated. If an open contact with food impaction without any existing pathology is observed, it is beneficial to classify the food impaction and identify its cause.…”