Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth as a risk‐indicator for peri‐implant disease—A cross‐sectional study

Abstract

Objectives The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between interproximal open contacts and peri‐implant disease. The secondary aim was to assess patient‐reported outcome measures in relation to contact status. Materials and methods A cross‐sectional study was performed on 61 patients with 142 implants adjacent to at least one natural tooth. Patients underwent a clinical examination to assess contact status and width, plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), periodontal probing depths (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BoP). Radiographic marginal bone level was measured in vertical bitewings taken within one year. A diagnosis was given to each implant. Last, subjects completed a brief questionnaire. Rao‐scott chi‐squared tests and generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were used to compare outcomes between groups. Results Seventy‐seven (54.2%) implants were found to have ≥1 interproximal open contact. Sixty‐five (45.8%) implants had closed contacts only. Implants with interproximal open contacts were significantly associated with peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis (p = .003) and increased prevalence of peri‐implant disease (adjusted PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09–2.27, p = .015). Open contact status was also associated with higher PPD (p = .045), PI scores (p = .036), and GI scores (p = .021). Open contact prevalence was 75.4% on the patient‐level and 54.2% on the implant‐level, involving the mesial surface of the implant restorations 68.5% of the time (p < .001). Conclusion Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth are a risk indicator for peri‐implant disease. Adequate contact between implant restorations and natural teeth may contribute to the health of peri‐implant tissues.

Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prosthesis and adjacent teeth and associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Of 7480 implants, 570 implants were placed in the maxilla and 638 in the mandible. Moreover, while 7 articles 17 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 27 , 29 , 31 included research that was limited to posterior implant-supported prostheses, 3 study 8 , 16 , 34 reported both anterior and posterior implant-supported prostheses, and only one article 26 included anterior prostheses.…”

“…Fourteen studies 16 , 18 , 23 - 30 , 32 - 34 , 37 were eligible to evaluate the frequency of PCL based on mesial or distal aspects. According to the results, the frequency for the distal aspect was 7.3% (95% CI: 3.7‒14.0%, Q-value=465.431, df=13, P<0.001, I 2 =97.20).…”

“…Eleven studies 16 , 23 , 26 , 28 - 30 , 32 - 34 , 37 , 38 were eligible to evaluate the frequency of PCL in terms of the mandibular or maxillary arch. According to the results, this frequency for the mandible was 30.3% (95% CI: 16.6‒48.7%, Q-value=649.789, df=10, P<0.001, I 2 =98.46), with 26.9% (95% CI: 14.8‒43.7%, Q-value=482.731, df=10, P<0.001, I 2 =97.92) for the maxilla.…”

“…Four studies 24 , 29 , 32 , 34 were included in the meta-analysis to compare the results of PCL in terms of the retention type. The point estimate for cement retention was 13.6% (95% CI: 3.1‒43.1%, Q-value=99.099, df=3, P<0.001, I 2 =96.97), and for screw retention this rate was 19.2% (95% CI: 5.2‒50.9%, Q-value=52.860, df=3, P<0.001, I 2 =94.32).…”

Peri-implant disease: early diagnosis and non-surgical treatment—a narrative literature review

“…Although the availability of literature is limited, a negative effect of occlusion on dental implant was suggested predominantly in animal studies (47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53). Similar to natural dentitions (54), open interproximal contact around a dental implant restoration was also associated with a higher probing depth, plaque index scores, and gingival index scores as well as 1.57 times greater risk of developing peri-implant disease (55). Prior to insertion, abutment and restorative complex should be carefully evaluated for any rough surface texture, which might have been developed during its laboratory fabrication.…”